Quick ethical question

[manudude03]

I don't remember the exact details, but I was holding something along the lines of:[hv=d=e&v=e&s=saxhkqtxxxdkxxcxx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

Bidding starts:

(1C)-P-(1H)

 

I decide to overcall 2H now (whether you agree is irrelevant). Partner gets asked what this means and he says he doesn't know. Bidding goes on to:

 

(1C)-P-(1H)-2H

(3C)-P-(3H)

 

What am I supposed to do here? Double which may get left in? Pass knowing it's going off? Verbally warn them (and partner) that 2H was natural and see if they want to change their call(s)?

 

As it was, it got passed out (I don't think they play 3H as forcing here) and we got +300 for a top, but I felt a little bad about it. I was told afterwards by both opps that they thought it was Michael's, does that change anything? Should I call TD (though in a club game, probably not used to this kind of thing)

[helene_t]

Partner said he didn't know. If you had no agreement about the 2♥ call, there was no misinformation.

[Hanoi5]

The director should have been called. He's the authority. You never have to explain your own calls, unless you're declarer and partner made a mistake or if you're a defender (and partner made a mistake) after the hand has been played (by then everyone should have noticed). In any case it is always better to call the Director and have him listen to whatever happened.

[hotShot]

Did you think, that your side has an agreement about this bid?

 

Your opps are entitled to know your agreements and your partnership experience. If this has not come up before, there is nothing to disclose.

Partner should not disclose his guesses to opps.

 

If you did not have an agreement, your partner now has partnership experience he can disclose next time.

[blackshoe]

I'm not so sure that a one-time thing is enough experience to establish an implicit agreement. If it were, you could only make a particular psych once with any given partner, and I know that's not the case.

 

OTOH, if my partner did this, I'd want to discuss it afterwards and establish a firm agreement one way or the other.

 

OTGH, it would be appropriate to say, the second time the bidding goes this way "no agreement, but partner bid this way once before and it was natural", if you haven't discussed it after the first time.

[manudude03]

Just to answer a couple of the questions:

 

We did have this sequence once before (only it was spades instead of hearts), which had been a disaster when partner took it as Michael's (and played 5H on a 3-2 fit). We had agreed it as natural after that experience, but partner seemingly forgot (he is a fair bit older than me). Indeed, after the hand he said that he remembered us discussing this before but couldn't remember.

 

The TD was also playing at the time, calling him either during or after the hand may have been a distraction for everyone, especially at his table, would it be better to do it at the end of the round (or when we can see his table is finished)?

 

Calling the TD is all and good, we still have to get to the end of the hand, what's the proper call here? (if they run to 4C partner had an easy double looking at ♣KQTx)

[Cascade]

You should call at the end of the hand. Since the director is playing and the hand is over you could wait until the director is free.

 

It seems that you did have a partnership agreement that your partner momentarily forgot.

 

The opponents 3♥ call may well have been based on the lack of accurate information about your 2♥ call.

 

As director I would then adjust the score. Probably the adjustment would be to 3♣ making some number of tricks although it is possible that even 3♣ was based on the inaccurate information so that some other adjustment was required - maybe even your side playing 2♥ or some other contract failing.

[Trinidad]

Just to answer a couple of the questions:

 

We did have this sequence once before (only it was spades instead of hearts), which had been a disaster when partner took it as Michael's (and played 5H on a 3-2 fit). We had agreed it as natural after that experience, but partner seemingly forgot (he is a fair bit older than me). Indeed, after the hand he said that he remembered us discussing this before but couldn't remember.

This means that there was misinformation. You (i.e. not the opponents) should call the TD and tell him that you have an agreement and that your agreement is that 2♥ is natural. Your agreement was not "I don't know". It is likely that the TD would give an AS based on the assumption that the opponents wouldn't have bid 3♥ if they had known your agreement about 2♥. (Since you're a defender you should call the TD after the hand is over.)

Calling the TD is all and good, we still have to get to the end of the hand, what's the proper call here?

The proper call is pass. After all, you have described your hand and you know nothing about partner's hand. You "expect" partner to double, since he (supposedly) knows what you have.

 

You have the Unauthorized Information (UI) that partner doesn't know what you have. Therefore, with the UI, you don't expect partner to double. Doubling "so that he won't forget to do it" is using UI.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

If you remember there's been a discussion, but you can't remember to what agreement (if any) the discussion led, you should alert, explain that you remember discussing it, but can't remember what you agreed. Then, opponents can call the TD, and he can send you away from the table and ask your partner to explain the agreement.

 

In the given case I agree with Wayne that since your partner didn't alert, you should call at the end of the hand. I don't see any problem with waiting until the end of the round, though, if the TD is also playing, although playing TDs and their partners, at least, are or should be aware that the job of TD takes precedence over playing the hand. So I would try, perhaps to accommodate the fact the TD is playing, but I wouldn't worry too much about it.

 

I don't think a score adjustment is automatic here. I would want to see what East's hand looks like. It may be (although I don't say it's likely) that his 3♥ bid was a SEWoG, in which case at least some part of the damage was probably self-inflicted, and should get no redress. To what to adjust, if the TD adjusts, depends on the cards in all four hands.

[hanp]

You should have called the director after the hand and explained that misinformation has been given. And of course you were correct to pass over 3H.

 

Then it is up to the director. The director may not adjust. If I was the director and found that (1) Your partner really didn't remember that you had a discussion until you reminded him afterwards and (2) the 3H bid by the opponents was not reasonable (for example if it was a 5-card suit) then I would not adjust the score.

 

It is also important to realize that even if the score is adjusted, that does not mean that either of you did something unethical. Of course you are allowed to forget agreements.

[blackshoe]

Of course you are allowed to forget agreements.

But only if you are not playing against Bobby Wolfe. B)

[Cascade]

I think bidding a 5-card suit is not a bad enough error to preclude an adjustment.

 

Sure rebidding a 5-card suit on this sort of auction is unsound. Nevertheless many players bid that way. Those same players though would not bid this way if you had already told them that you have five or six good cards in their suit sitting over them. Therefore they still have been damaged by the incorrect information.

[helene_t]

Bidding a 5-card heart suit here if it is NF is very bad, especially given that p didn't tell them that 2♥ was artificial. OTOH RHO could be worried about a spade stopper (the suit you might have) and worried that 3♠ wouldn't ask for a spade stopper but show one, since it is unclear whether you have showed spades. Or he could have the same problem with diamonds. So maybe he thought 3♥ would be forcing and the least confusing way to keep the auction alive so p maybe could bid 3NT. I don't know who these opps were but many (if not most) players at the club don't usually even consider the question of whether a bid in some convoluted auction is forcing.

 

I dunno. Some club players very often end up in silly contracts after intervention, for lack of agreements about which bids are forcing and for lack of definition of doubles and cuebids. If they haven't got an agreement about the forcing character of 3♥ here then I think it is too generous to adjust as if they would have landed on their feed given correct information.

[aguahombre]

If have never found any ethical question to be "quick".

[Cascade]

If have never found any ethical question to be "quick".

"Are you a cheat?"

 

That's a pretty quick question

[aguahombre]

If have never found any ethical question to be "quick".

"Are you a cheat?"

 

That's a pretty quick question

save the bait questions for karluk. i meant the answers are never "quick".

[peachy]

If you _had_ an agreement what 2H means in this auction, then "I don't know" was misinformation. It does not matter WHY partner does not tell what the agreement is, opponents are entitled to hear what the partnership agreement is.

 

If you _did not have_ an agreement what 2H here is, then your partner could have made it clear and said "we don't have an agreement" or "we have never discussed this". Answering "I don't know" is a bit unclear and does not inform the opponents whether there is an agreement but he forgot what it is, or whether there is no agreement.

 

Just my two cents. I don't think TD is needed unless it was a case of Misinformation = you had an agreement and partner forgot it.

[ArtK78]

Question: "What does the 2♥ bid mean?"

 

Answer: "I don't know."

 

Misinformation? Not unless "I don't know" was a lie. "Non-information" would be a better description than misinformation (however, the answer does impart UI to the 2♥ bidder).

 

If the opponent wanted to know what the 2♥ bid meant, he could have requested that the partner of the 2♥ bidder leave the table and then ask the bidder whether there was a partnership agreement about the meaning of the 2♥ call. In the absence of trying to get a good answer to the question, I would never award an adjusted score to the side which bid 3♥ in the face of a 2♥ call that could be natural. And I would venture to say that a great many players play 2♥ as natural in this auction.

 

Allowance should be given to the experience level of the non-offending pair, but I don't believe that a score adjustment is in order.

 

As for calling the TD, clearly the 2♥ bidder cannot do so until after the hand, as the mere act of calling the TD would impart UI. The non-offending side could call the TD at any time, and the result should be that the TD should request the partner of the 2♥ bidder to leave the table so that the 2♥ bidder can inform the non-offending side of any partnership agreement relating to the 2♥ call.

[peachy]

Question: "What does the 2♥ bid mean?"

 

Answer: "I don't know."

 

Misinformation? Not unless "I don't know" was a lie. "Non-information" would be a better description than misinformation (however, the answer does impart UI to the 2♥ bidder).

 

If the opponent wanted to know what the 2♥ bid meant, he could have requested that the partner of the 2♥ bidder leave the table and then ask the bidder whether there was a partnership agreement about the meaning of the 2♥ call. In the absence of trying to get a good answer to the question, I would never award an adjusted score to the side which bid 3♥ in the face of a 2♥ call that could be natural. And I would venture to say that a great many players play 2♥ as natural in this auction.

 

Allowance should be given to the experience level of the non-offending pair, but I don't believe that a score adjustment is in order.

 

As for calling the TD, clearly the 2♥ bidder cannot do so until after the hand, as the mere act of calling the TD would impart UI. The non-offending side could call the TD at any time, and the result should be that the TD should request the partner of the 2♥ bidder to leave the table so that the 2♥ bidder can inform the non-offending side of any partnership agreement relating to the 2♥ call.

"Misinformation" is the legal term. Introducing new terms is going to make it hard to discuss a matter involving the laws/rules of the game.

 

When an answer to opponent's question fails to give the partnership agreement, it is Misinformation (there are other types of misinformation so don't reverse this statement :) ). It makes no difference how or why the failure happens, whether it is non-information, wrong information, or incomplete information; it is all misinformation.