Ethics at the table

[badderzboy]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sxxhk10xxdkxxcqxxx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

The Scene

 

You're playing club pairs and a qualified TD and playing at a table with 3 players not so versed in the laws of the game...

 

The action

 

Pass - pass - Your partner opens 1♠ and RHO bids 2♥s and you decide to bid 2NT and partner alerts and thinks it's Jacoby 2NT LHO bids 3♥s, ptr 4♠s and RHO 5♥s which you double and it's -2 for 300 and a top.

 

How do you handle the bidding as the auction continues?

 

Is the Double assuming you ignore all the MI/UI?

 

What do you do - LHO/RHO will let the result stand as they know no better - Do you?

 

Steve

[jkdood]

Can we assume when partner alerted 2NT, the opps asked and he explained it as a forcing spade raise or said Jacoby 2NT raise, at that juncture?

[dicklont]

You are right to double.

Without UI your information is that partner has a good hand with long spades and needs some scattered honours to bid game.

With your hand there is no reason to bid higher and every reason to expect more than two tricks.

 

But your opponents have every right to complain and the score should be adjusted.

They are misinformed about your 2NT and would not have bid 5♥ knowing that you have a natural 2NT.

 

After the hand is played you must call the director.

[badderzboy]

Can we assume when partner alerted 2NT, the opps asked and he explained it as a forcing spade raise or said Jacoby 2NT raise, at that juncture?

Yes was explained as a Jacoby type raise

[jkdood]

Seems like there was a REQUIREMENT to bring up (via TD call best?) - under law 75d2 - that there was a misexplanation. (Before opening lead, by dummy, or as defender, after completion of play.) Seems the TD takes charge and all ethical obligations are then resolved, but it would be both unethical and a violation not to bring it up, no?

[jtfanclub]

Seems like there was a REQUIREMENT to bring up (via TD call best?) - under law 75d2 - that there was a misexplanation. (Before opening lead, by dummy, or as defender, after completion of play.) Seems the TD takes charge and all ethical obligations are then resolved, but it would be both unethical and a violation not to bring it up, no?

I dunno, the NEW rules say that they "should" call the director (Law 75B), if I understand "should" correctly, it's not required. So it's certainly a violation of ethics not to call, but it may not be a rule anymore. In contrast, if the player who gave the mistaken explanation later realizes his mistake, he must call the director.

 

I agree that, barring any other information, this should be rolled back to 4♠. If 4♠ makes, then the actual result would stand.

[hrothgar]

There are three key issues that need to be addressed:

 

The first is the 5♥ bid. Did the misinformation about nature of the 2NT call suggest bidding 5♥?

 

Next, assuming that the decision to bid 5♥ was consequent to the misinformation, we then get to decide whether the decision to double 5♥ was suggested by the fact that partner's 4♠ bid was based on the belief that you had a spade fit.

 

Last, is there any suggestion that the opponents might have bid 5♥ as a double shot?

[jtfanclub]

There are three key issues that need to be addressed:

I would say these are Yes, No, and Heck No.

[Finch]

As everyone else has says, you bid assuming that 2NT was natural and partner understood it as such. In that case, your double of 5H is entirely normal.

 

There seems to be some confusion here.

 

It depends what your partnership agreement actually is.

 

1. If your agreement is that 2NT is natural then you are obliged to call the TD at the end of play (because you are the defending side) under 20F5(a). This explicitly takes precendence over the general rule that you do not have to draw attention to your own irregularity.

 

...The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous ...

 

It is reasonably likely that the TD will award an adjusted score with your partner playing in 4S on the basis that one of the 3H / 5H bids would not have happened had they known that 2NT was natural - although we'd need to see all the hands to be sure.

 

2. If you agreement is that 2NT is Jacoby then you are not by law obliged to do anything. However, you must be pretty certain that you are right - because your partner certainly doesn't agree with you right now!

 

However, bearing in mind that "You're playing club pairs and a qualified TD and playing at a table with 3 players not so versed in the laws of the game..." it is definitely a good idea to explain to your opponents at the end of the hand something like

 

"... I thought that 2NT was natural, perhaps it would be a good idea to get the TD over..."

Edited August 20, 2008 by FrancesHinden

[badderzboy]

Thanks all for the comments.

 

I was pretty certain I had to bid as though partner had understood my bid and so had to double 5Hs and also not speak as defender until the hand was complete.

 

I did immediately call the TD over and explained that in my honest opinion that there was MI and that I believed that the opponents had been damaged.

 

The TD agreed and we adjusted the score and turned a clear top into a bottom c'est la vie.

 

I was interested in people's views and I'm glad I was right to act as I did in the bidding/play and then speak up in line with the laws.

 

What amazed me was the opps were surprised that someone would be so honest!

 

Steve

[jillybean]

Fine ethics Steve. I thought as defender you should call the TD/advise the opps of the MI after the auction but before the opening lead but I see that is only of you are declarer/dummy.

[RMB1]

I dunno, the NEW rules say that they "should" call the director (Law 75B), if I understand "should" correctly, it's not required.  So it's certainly a violation of ethics not to call, but it may not be a rule anymore.  In contrast, if the player who gave the mistaken explanation later realizes his mistake, he must call the director.

Law 75 in the new law book is a collections of examples. The force of the old law 75 is now in law 20F5b: "The player [whose partner has given a mistaken explanaction] must call the director ... "

 

Robin

[jtfanclub]

I dunno, the NEW rules say that they "should" call the director (Law 75B), if I understand "should" correctly, it's not required.  So it's certainly a violation of ethics not to call, but it may not be a rule anymore.  In contrast, if the player who gave the mistaken explanation later realizes his mistake, he must call the director.

Law 75 in the new law book is a collections of examples. The force of the old law 75 is now in law 20F5b: "The player [whose partner has given a mistaken explanaction] must call the director ... "

 

Robin

Thanks. I'm not as familiar with these new laws...

[mycroft]

The new laws say "should call the TD" instead of "must" when talking about "attention drawn to an irregularity", yes; but still they say "should" call the TD and "must" correct the misexplanation at end of hand (actually, looking at the one I get to use in the ACBL, it says "must" if declarer, but just "calls" if defender. I'm guessing that's just a missed emphasis).

 

Even with the new Laws, remember the Rule, the Explanation and the Exception (Thanks, Richard Hills):

- When attention has been drawn to an irregularity, summon the Director.

- You are not required to draw attention to an irregularity, even one by your own side,

- except in misinformation cases, because it is unreasonable(frequently impossible) for the opponents to know MI occurred.

[JoAnneM]

I think it is important that after a situation like this that the weight of any decision be given to the damaged pair - as in deciding whether they "played bridge" after the MI. Expecting a damaged pair to do the "right" thing before awarding them an adjustment is, in my opinion, frequently unfair.

[blackshoe]

I dunno, the NEW rules say that they "should" call the director (Law 75B), if I understand "should" correctly, it's not required.  So it's certainly a violation of ethics not to call, but it may not be a rule anymore.

I'm afraid you are mistaken. :)

 

The introduction to the new laws says

Established usage has been retained in regard to ... “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized)

 

This means that you will not often get a procedural penalty for failure to do what you "should do", but it's still an infraction of law. That is what makes not calling unethical, btw — the ethics of the game are defined by its laws.

 

In contrast, if the player who gave the mistaken explanation later realizes his mistake, he must call the director.

 

This part is true. Interestingly, the law here still says "must", indicating that failure to call the TD for your own misexplanation should get you a procedural penalty "more often than not". OTOH, you'd have to let the cat out of the bag somehow, or the TD is likely never to know that you became aware of your mistake.

[barmar]

1. If your agreement is that 2NT is natural then you are obliged to call the TD at the end of play

...

2. If you agreement is that 2NT is natural then you are not by law obliged to do anything.

Huh? One of these is presumably a typo (and I'm not talking about the "your"->"you" typo in #2).

[Finch]

1. If your agreement is that 2NT is natural then you are obliged to call the TD at the end of play

...

2. If you agreement is that 2NT is natural then you are not by law obliged to do anything.

Huh? One of these is presumably a typo (and I'm not talking about the "your"->"you" typo in #2).

Fixed.

 

If partner has explained your agreement correctly (i.e. that he is correct that 2NT shows a raise) then yuo do not need to do anything.

[gwnn]

I think it is important that after a situation like this that the weight of any decision be given to the damaged pair - as in deciding whether they "played bridge" after the MI.  Expecting a damaged pair to do the "right" thing before awarding them an adjustment is, in my opinion, frequently unfair.

isn't there some law that says that the damaged side should get the most favorable result that is reasonably likely? I'm not sure of the exact wording. Of course it's not necessarily fair but it may well be the most fair principle.

 

edit: as hotShot has kindly shown me here.

[JoAnneM]

The reason I made the "playing bridge" comment is that frequently in forum posts there are posts that seem to argue that the non-offending side didn't play past the infraction, and they should have been able to do that, so they don't deserve an adjustment. But, if you look at the appeals that appear in the NABC Bulletins that is mostly not even an issue. So, I just wonder if it is too much of an issue in bridge forums.

[mycroft]

There is a no-double-shot regulation pretty much world-wide in bridge that basically says that when the opponents do something wrong, you can't Hail Mary secure in the knowledge you'll get the ruling back the 90% of the time it doesn't work.

 

Other sports allow it: Gridiron Football is almost defined by it; Cricket minimizes the ways you can be out off a no-ball, so it's worth going after it (as long as you Know it's a no-ball). But it's not considered Bridge.

 

Different places in the world have different standards; some basically say "no doubleshot, but clearly inferior, but rational is okay", some are more restrictive. The ACBL is very restrictive, with a "continue to play bridge" policy; basically, you have to still look like an expert, if you are one, to get redress. It is explained in one of the Appeals books that this is because of the proliferation of pro-client partnerships, and (some) pros taking every inch of any advantage to get the good results that gets them the higher-paying (possibly even better) clients.