Too ethical?

[Benoit35]

Yesterday at the club, I picked up (approximately) this hand.

 

♠Kx

♥Txxx

♦AKxx

♣xxx

 

My partner, in 3rd seat, opened 1♠. We play Drury but I forgot it completely, so I responded 2♦. Partner alerted, and that's what made me realize my mistake. His rebid was 3♠.

 

I decided to (well, not really - I had read that in such a situation I had to) do the ethical thing and pretend I hadn't heard the Alert. Under No Drury, a 3♠ rebid would mean 16+ HCP and 6+ spades, so the spade game was in order. To pass 3♠ would have been unauthorized use of the information I gained from the Alert. I raised to 4♠ and we went down two.

 

My partner wasn't happy, and said I didn't need to add another mistake to my original one. After the session, I talked to the director and he, too, said I was under no obligation to compound my original mistake and bid game.

 

I'm still not convinced. Did I do the right thing, or did I needlessly throw away some matchpoints?

[helene_t]

The director is wrong. You did the right thing.

[kenrexford]

100% clear. The fact that a director has no clue about this situation and that your partner doesn't either is immaterial.

[whereagles]

Being a Director myself, I congratulate you on your correct attitude.

[gwnn]

I don't get it. What does a 3♠ rebid show in your system over 2♦ drury? Surely a good hand, no?

[Benoit35]

I don't get it. What does a 3♠ rebid show in your system over 2♦ drury? Surely a good hand, no?

3♠ would have basically re-thrown the game invitation to me, so the UI definitely suggested passing.

[whereagles]

If Benoit hadn't seen the alert, he would have kept thinking 2♦ was natural. Then 3♠ would be interpreted as a normal a spade good 1-suiter, making 4♠ obvious.

 

Note that you ARE allowed to notice you made a mistake and act accordingly. But in this case pard's alert made him realize the mistake and that's unauthorized info. Even if Benoit argued he did realize it before the alert, no Director would (should) buy that story :)

 

So in the end the attitude was correct.

[Benoit35]

Even if Benoit argued he did realize it before the alert, no Director would (should) buy that story

Indeed, as the Alert card flew out of my partner's box almost before my own 2♦ card touched the table... :)

[TimG]

I encountered a similar situation last weekend. I opened 2N showing a weak hand with the minors. LHO gave my partner a few seconds to alert, and when none was forthcoming asked my partner if he could see his convention card. In the process of showing our opponent the convention card, my partner saw the 2NT section of the card and was woken up to our agreement.

 

My partner said something like "I'm going to treat it as strong because I wasn't sure". At this point, the director was called. The director was a bit perplexed, but ruled that my partner indeed had to treat 2NT as strong, but that if the opponents took action he could wake up to the agreement. My LHO doubled, waking partner up, and the rest was uneventful.

 

But, I wonder whether the ruling was correct.

 

Suppose my partner did not alert (indicating that he has forgotten the agreement), the opponents look at our CCs so that they know our agreement and then my LHO doubles. My partner asks about the meaning of the double and is told "interest in penalizing at least one of opener's suits" or something similar which indicates the opponents are defending against something other than a strong balanced 2NT opening. Is partner allowed to be woken up by an opponent's explanation? The ruling we received basically seems to be saying: yes.

[jdonn]

Both your attitude and your specific action were absolutely proper. Your partner being ignorant is one thing, but the director needs some serious training.

[skjaeran]

You did the correct thing, as explained by others above.

 

If you hadn't raised to game and I had been called to the table by the (awake) opps, I'd have adjusted to 4♠♠-2.

[Tola18]

TimG. As I understand, your director was absolutely correct.

Very correct also of all the around to be nice fellows, including the Lefty who helped your partner out.

 

 

Benoit. Here is a extra point: If nobody in your club is de facto bothering about some finer points of bridge-etics (very common in small clubs for example, with at best a non professional director),

 

so perhaps you DID threw away a trick unnecessarily.

 

This is perhaps worth a discussion.

 

There ARE apparently very often quite different behaviour standards in smaller clubs, and in serious competition / bigger clubs run by seasoned, well educated directors.

[peachy]

TimG. As I understand, your director was absolutely correct.

Very correct also of all the around to be nice fellows, including the Lefty who helped your partner out.

 

 

Benoit. Here is a extra point: If nobody in your club is de facto bothering about some finer points of bridge-etics (very common in small clubs for example, with at best a non professional director),

 

so perhaps you DID threw away a trick unnecessarily.

 

This is perhaps worth a discussion.

 

There ARE apparently very often quite different behaviour standards in smaller clubs, and in serious competition / bigger clubs run by seasoned, well educated directors.

This is not a matter of "behavioral standards". It is a matter of law. Benoit35 did what the law required him to do, perhaps instinctively, perhaps because he knows what the law requires him to do/not do. If instinctively, it shows a high degree of natural integrity and strength of character. I applaud that.

 

The director was wrong and he is incompetent in not knowing what the law says about a situation like this one.

[Rossoneri]

Agreed, this is a matter of law and not behavioural standards.

[Benoit35]

TimG.  As I understand, your director was absolutely correct.

Very correct also of all the around to be nice fellows, including the Lefty who helped your partner out.

 

 

Benoit. Here is a extra point:  If nobody in your club is de facto bothering about some finer points of bridge-etics (very common in small clubs for example, with at best a non professional director),

 

so perhaps you DID threw away a trick unnecessarily.

 

This is perhaps worth a discussion.

 

There ARE apparently very often quite different behaviour standards in smaller clubs, and in serious competition / bigger clubs run by seasoned, well educated directors.

This is not a matter of "behavioral standards". It is a matter of law. Benoit35 did what the law required him to do, perhaps instinctively, perhaps because he knows what the law requires him to do/not do. If instinctively, it shows a high degree of natural integrity and strength of character. I applaud that.

 

The director was wrong and he is incompetent in not knowing what the law says about a situation like this one.

Well I didn't do this out of instinct. I already knew this club had its own "house rules", so to speak. I already had a hunch that obeying the Law might get me in more trouble than using the UI. Had I passed, that would have been the end of it - heck, my partner would have probably made 3♠ for a top (he lost track of a trump because he was busy wondering about my bidding), and on the off chance that our opponents had knows the rules and called the Director, he very likely would have brushed off their complaint.

 

Yes, such is the way the Laws are applied at our local club. So if I face the same situation again, I'm afraid I'm going to think twice about doing the same thing. ;)

[cicus]

I don't get it. What does a 3♠ rebid show in your system over 2♦ drury? Surely a good hand, no?

3♠ would have basically re-thrown the game invitation to me, so the UI definitely suggested passing.

Suggested passing? It would never occur to me to pass this hand with 2.5 quick tricks (in fact almost 3). Nearly an opener and it has improved during the bidding.

[Benoit35]

Not playing Double Drury, it hasn't. Partner thinks I have 4-spade support so he isn't promising a 6th spade.

[cicus]

Not playing Double Drury, it hasn't. Partner thinks I have 4-spade support so he isn't promising a 6th spade.

I didn't expect a 6th spade... :)

 

However, 3NT may be a better bid than 4♠.

[JoAnneM]

I don't get it. You have game points, why wouldn't you want to be in game regardless of the bidding snafu?

[Benoit35]

We don't have game points, we play that 3♠ in response to Drury is a minimum opening hand (whereas 2♠ would have been sub-minimum) with no other feature worth bidding. Everybody else was in 2♠ or 3♠, making 8 or 9 tricks. Partner's first words when I tabled my cards were "You should have passed, partner."

[TimG]

We don't have game points, we play that 3♠ in response to Drury is a minimum opening hand (whereas 2♠ would have been sub-minimum) with no other feature worth bidding.

Does this make sense? It sounds to me like 2S shows a sub-minimum and 3S shows a hand that would not bid game opposite a limit raise. Don't you want to try to play 2S with either?

[crazy4hoop]

We don't have game points, we play that 3♠ in response to Drury is a minimum opening hand (whereas 2♠ would have been sub-minimum) with no other feature worth bidding.

Does this make sense? It sounds to me like 2S shows a sub-minimum and 3S shows a hand that would not bid game opposite a limit raise. Don't you want to try to play 2S with either?

We don't have game points, we play that 3♠ in response to Drury...

 

I don't believe whatever you play in response to Drury is relevant here. You are not allowed to have the alert procedure inform you that your partner's bids are based on his beliefs of your bid being Drury. You must bid your hand as if your partner knew your 2♦ bid was natural.

 

Other posters please inform me if I am mistaken, thanks. :)

[JoAnneM]

That was the point of his original post. He bid as if the 2d bid was natural, the 3S bid was a real jump in spades, and they went down.

[crazy4hoop]

Agreed but it was starting to sound like he was doubting himself when he clearly did the right thing.

[Tola18]

I'm afraid I'm going to think twice about doing the same thing. :(

DONT think twice! Better be prepared and act casually in tempo. IF you think twice, there can be a break in tempo - and it may become a new ethical dilemma! :D :P