What are my obligations?

[sfi]

We had a hand came up in an online match, but it got me thinking about what would have happened in real life against people that haven't been playing this system for years.

 

The situation is that we play a relay system and by the time my partner bids 4NT, he has told me that he is 1-3-4-5 with no diamond honour and that we are missing exactly 2 controls (Ace=3, King=2, Queen=1).

 

The problem is that I'm holding AJx in diamonds, so I know something is wrong. After thinking about it I worked out that partner had very likely missed a step in the relay and was trying to show 2-2-4-5 with 6 controls rather than 8. All's well and good - I pass and we're in a fine spot.

 

Imagine this happens in a real life match. I'm obviously required to tell the opposition what his bids actually meant. Am I also obliged to tell them where he is likely to have gone wrong (I was 90%+ sure of what happened), since there is no way for them to be able to work it out on their own without more study than is going to be allowed in a timed event? And how much obligation do we have in general to tell the opponents when we know what mistake partner has made?

[blackshoe]

I'm obviously required to tell the opposition what his bids actually meant.

You are required to tell them the partnership agreement as to what his bids meant.

Am I also obliged to tell them where he is likely to have gone wrong (I was 90%+ sure of what happened), since there is no way for them to be able to work it out on their own without more study than is going to be allowed in a timed event?

Since you worked out that he went wrong from his bids and your cards, and nothing else, no, you're not.

And how much obligation do we have in general to tell the opponents when we know what mistake partner has made?

You are required to disclose information you get from your partnership agreements as to the meaning of your partner's calls. You are not required to disclose anything about the cards in your hand, or inferences made on the basis of cards in your hand.

 

Your partner is likewise not required to tell the opponents he has misbid, even if he realizes that fact during the bidding (or during the play before he sees your hand, or when he sees it if you are dummy). However, if he was awakened by something you did (other than simply bidding) such as an alert or explanation of an alert, then he has UI, of which he must carefully avoid taking damage.

 

The relevant laws are 20, 40, 75, and, for that last bit about UI, 73C.

[sfi]

Am I also obliged to tell them where he is likely to have gone wrong (I was 90%+ sure of what happened), since there is no way for them to be able to work it out on their own without more study than is going to be allowed in a timed event?

Since you worked out that he went wrong from his bids and your cards, and nothing else, no, you're not.

But how about when dummy (my hand) comes down? They can see that something is wrong but I know what it was and what he thinks he was showing, but they can't work it out because we're playing a weird system.

[blackshoe]

If it makes you uncomfortable not to tell them what you know, there's no law that says you can't tell them. OTOH, there's no law that says you must (or even should) either.

 

If they complain that his hand doesn't match what you told them his bids meant, just tell 'em he misbid. Unless there's some evidence he's done it before, and enough that you would expect it, you've done nothing wrong. In England, they might call the TD, and the TD would apply their "fielded misbid" regulation, but absent that evidence I mentioned, he'd rule it "green", so not an infraction.

[axman]

If it makes you uncomfortable not to tell them what you know, there's no law that says you can't tell them. OTOH, there's no law that says you must (or even should) either.

 

If they complain that his hand doesn't match what you told them his bids meant, just tell 'em he misbid. Unless there's some evidence he's done it before, and enough that you would expect it, you've done nothing wrong. In England, they might call the TD, and the TD would apply their "fielded misbid" regulation, but absent that evidence I mentioned, he'd rule it "green", so not an infraction.

This matter, to some extent, was discussed without resolution in March 2009 at the ACBLLC meeting [and in the time following adjournment].

 

The argument was made to willing ears, if skeptical, that explainer had a duty** to advise the opponents that partner may well be confused in his actions, such as in the case where the partnership used to have agreement X instead of the current Y.

 

To demonstrate the dubious nature of such an assertion I’ll use an example from yesterday’s BB- one that does not involve explanations between opponents, but solely communication between partners which was a source of confusion.

 

In a competitive slam auction, Zia made a lead directing double of D and then made a lightner double calling for a C thereby canceling the D [which kibitzers could see was a dubious attempt to get the maximum penalty from the D lead]. Hamman dutifully led a C and scored -1210 for his effort.

 

This shows that merely one small piece of confusion swung 32 non vulnerable imps. In fact, it was reported that the episode had been reproduced at two other tables- which goes to show that conflicting information often is consistently gotten wrong.

 

The point being that even with the best of intentions stuff meant as helpful can lead to disastrous outcomes between partners, so, imagine the effect of producing conflicting explanations for opponents that are so-called meant to be helpful.

 

If nothing else, it may take the opponent several minutes to sift through what he will choose to believe. Should mr. helpful be hit with a huge slow play penalty for causing the mess or should the victim be hit with it for taking the time to pause? And what if the extraneous information indeed sows confusion and the opponents suffer for it?

 

Imo, it is likely that it is foreseeable that such efforts to be so-called helpful are likely to cost the opponents rather help them; and, additionally, will entail breaches of L73B.

 

 

**distinct from a personal view of ethics

[bluejak]

I am not so sure I agree with all this.

 

When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to opponent’s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special

information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

Is the meaning of other calls that the player considers may be relevant not "special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement"?

[barmar]

The argument was made to willing ears, if skeptical, that explainer had a duty** to advise the opponents that partner may well be confused in his actions, such as in the case where the partnership used to have agreement X instead of the current Y.

That's different because it's information from partnership experience (an implicit agreement), not from the auction and your own hand.