Weird question

[awm]

Partner and I have agreed that over a 1♣ opening which could be two cards or fewer, our 2♣ overcall is natural. Over a 1♣ opening which is always three or more, we play michaels cuebids.

 

We are playing in ACBL where 1♣ that could be shorter than three requires an announcement. RHO opens 1♣, and I have a hand with a bunch of clubs. I glance at their convention card and notice that their agreement is 1♣ could be as few as two; however there was no announcement. Should I:

 

(1) Ask opponents about the 1♣ call, even though the answer is on the card, so that when I overcall 2♣ partner will know it is natural.

 

(2) Call the director immediately because of the failure to announce.

 

(3) Bid 2♣ intending it as natural, and then call director later if partner takes it as michaels because of the non-announce and we have an accident.

 

(4) Continue as if 1♣ had been 3+ (i.e. pass here, maybe come in later). Call the director if it seems that I have been damaged by the inability to overcall 2♣ natural in direct seat.

 

Or something else?

[blackshoe]

I think #3. You have looked at their card; you know what their agreement is. You can't take an action designed to clue partner in, basically you have to just bid your hand.

[matmat]

is there any case that your looking at the opps' CC may have already alerted partner to this?

[campboy]

If an opening bid has an alertable meaning according to the card, but is not alerted, it is quite possible that the card is wrong or you are looking at someone else's card. Therefore I would ask.

 

(Actually, with some partners I would have had to ask at the start of the round since we play one defence against siege-style 1♣, which can be a 2-card suit even in a hand with 4 diamonds, and another against the more common style of 2 cards only if 4=4=3=2.)

[karlson]

Especially against decent players, I like #1. Who knows, maybe they marked the convention card wrong by accident, or maybe it was left over from a previous pair. If I bid 2c without asking and partner isn't up to looking at the card, I'm basically certain to have to deal with a very messy director ruling. In contrast, I can just ask and play normal bridge.

[jeremy69]

I would ask becuase it is easier to fix the problem, if there is one, now rather than later when it comes to light that a. they failed to alert/announce or the convention card belonged to a pair six tables back or perhaps it was my convention card. Somehow, however obvoius the case is for damage it becomes more difficult to fix because you haven't "protected" yourself.

[PeterE]

My first reaction was, like Ed, #3 with the same argument.

 

But after thinking a little bit more about it, I now vote for #5 :)

 

As we have a special agreement after a 1♣ opening it is normal to assure opponents' methods.

So, if I read on "their" SC - and I'm not totally sure, it's the SC of my current opponents - that 1♣ may be short and they did not announce it that way, I'm going to point to this discrepancy: "Sorry, I just looked on your (?) SC; doesn't short club need an announcement, Sir?". I will try to emphasize this discrepancy rather than showing interest in the ♣ suit - if possible.

[paulg]

This thread, from the (UK) Home Internationals earlier this year, shows the carnage that can follow when you are looking at the wrong convention card.

 

So I think it's better to ask.

 

Paul

[bluejak]

While you are not allowed to ask for the purpose of letting partner know I would choose #1 - but not for the reason given. I would choose #1 because when you are given two bits of information that disagree you need to know which is right. It does not matter why the card differs - wrong SC, changed system, forgot to announce - since you need to know for your own call, you ask.

[MFA]

Ask to clarify.

 

You are recieving conflicting information about the opponents' system. It's not in the spirit of the game to lean back in that situation and hope to recieve compensation afterwards, when you know right now that there is a problem.

 

Partner will hear the question but that is just how it works.

[bluejak]

There are difficulties with not finding out. At high levels of the game you are expected to protect yourself. In England, for example, there is a regulation:

 

5 H 1 A player’s claim to have been damaged because the opponents failed to alert or announce a call will fail if it is judged that the player was aware of its likely meaning and if he had the opportunity to ask without putting his side’s interests at risk.

I think this is more likely to be applied to better players.

 

But I merely gave my advice as to the best thing to do. It is a reasonable alternative to say nothing, and seek a ruling if it goes wrong. But do not blame me if you get ruled against! :D <_<

[axman]

My first reaction was, like Ed, #3 with the same argument.

 

But after thinking a little bit more about it, I now vote for #5 :rolleyes:

 

As we have a special agreement after a 1♣ opening it is normal to assure opponents' methods.

So, if I read on "their" SC - and I'm not totally sure, it's the SC of my current opponents - that 1♣ may be short and they did not announce it that way, I'm going to point to this discrepancy: "Sorry, I just looked on your (?) SC; doesn't short club need an announcement, Sir?". I will try to emphasize this discrepancy rather than showing interest in the ♣ suit - if possible.

Over the years I have developed the opinion for the case where one's agreement is conditional ['varies' depending upon what agreement the opponents have]:

 

at the beginning of every round

[a] it is important that the opponents be made aware of every such conditional agreement [should be done with an auxilliary sheet]

for every such conditional agreement it is ascertained what the opponent's agreement is

[paulg]

Over the years I have developed the opinion for the case where one's agreement is conditional ['varies' depending upon what agreement the opponents have]:

 

at the beginning of every round

[a] it is important that the opponents be made aware of every such conditional agreement [should be done with an auxilliary sheet]

for every such conditional agreement it is ascertained what the opponent's agreement is

It's not clear to me that this approach, however desirable, would leave any time to actually play a hand.

[blackshoe]

It was the reason given "so that partner will know..." that led me away from option 1. But the reason "to clarify ambiguous information for oneself" works for me.

[aguahombre]

It was the reason given "so that partner will know..." that led me away from option 1. But the reason "to clarify ambiguous information for oneself" works for me.

The person sitting over the 1C opener did not cause the problem, he noticed one. Asking about it, whether it alerts partner or not, must be allowed. It would be better, I guess -- and less UI prone, if partner knew I always made myself aware of these things and always asked when they occurred.

 

My conscience is clear using option #1. 3 or 4 would leave me feeling sleezy.

[cherdanno]

I can't believe anyone is seriously suggesting (3). I would ask, not to alert partner, just to find out which is right. (Yes I have once seen a CC that wasn't 100% correct.) Why create a messy MI information when it's not necessary? Maybe partner will look at the CC later, but given the missing announcement, will assume I thought 2♣ was Michaels?

What is the problem with asking? Assuming the CC is right, they will say its short, I will bid 2♣, and partner knows it shows clubs. Where is the UI problem?

 

Ok, if the CC is wrong, I may have given partner UI that I have clubs if I asked in the wrong tone. At least in this case I have created an interesting Ruling problem to post (Is UI still UI when it is due to a question I only asked because of MI on the CC? New thread anyone? <_< )

[MFA]

There are difficulties with not finding out.  At high levels of the game you are expected to protect yourself.  In England, for example, there is a regulation:

 

5 H 1 A player’s claim to have been damaged because the opponents failed to alert or announce a call will fail if it is judged that the player was aware of its likely meaning and if he had the opportunity to ask without putting his side’s interests at risk.

I think this is more likely to be applied to better players.

 

But I merely gave my advice as to the best thing to do. It is a reasonable alternative to say nothing, and seek a ruling if it goes wrong. But do not blame me if you get ruled against! :) <_<

Yes, there are of course no obligations to seek information about their system. So if one likes, one can go ahead and bid.

 

To get a compensation afterwards, however, the laws require the player to be innocent (Law 12B1).

If a player realizes he is getting conflicting information and is taking no steps to clarify, then that player is not innocent and thus shouldn't be awarded damages.

 

He can call the director, no problem. Just to get refused hopefully.

I'll first have a problem with it, if he applies the :D and doesn't tell honestly about what he was aware of at the time of his decision. Since that could easily provoke a wrong ruling.

[blackshoe]

You're missing my point, Aqua. Asking for partner's benefit is illegal (Law 73B1).

[blackshoe]

To get a compensation afterwards, however, the laws require the player to be innocent (Law 12B1).

The objective of a score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1{b} below.

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only.

 

I think that it is the word "innocent" which directs the law to 12C1{b}, and in particular that in order to be deemed "not innocent" a contestant has to commit a serious error, or take a wild or gambling action. Which of these has our putative player done in not asking for clarification?

[aguahombre]

You're missing my point, Aqua. Asking for partner's benefit is illegal (Law 73B1).

Duh, of course it is. You are a hard person to agree with, even when I quote you and say pretty much the same thing --that partner's benefit is a byproduct and clarification is the real reason for asking. Whether I know that byproduct might occur should not be a consideration.

[MFA]

To get a compensation afterwards, however, the laws require the player to be innocent (Law 12B1).

The objective of a score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1{b} below.

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only.

 

I think that it is the word "innocent" which directs the law to 12C1{b}, and in particular that in order to be deemed "not innocent" a contestant has to commit a serious error, or take a wild or gambling action. Which of these has our putative player done in not asking for clarification?

I disagree that this is the logical interpretation of 12B1.

 

Innocent is part of the definition of damage, and an independent condition for using 12B1 at all.

 

12C1b is about the non-offending side adding to the damage by their own 'bad' play. This additional damage will not get compensated.

This doesn't mean that 12C1b defines or has anything to do with the term innocent.

(In fact it would be logical inconsistent to talk about part of damage in 12C1b, if 12C1b were the definition of innocent. Since there is no damage if the party is not innocent according to definition!)

 

The reference in 12B1 to 12C1b is solely for convenience so that the TD doesn't forget to take this into consideration.

[blackshoe]

This is what comes of using many words where one will do.

 

You seem to be saying that the player who does not ask when he sees a discrepancy between what he reads on the system card and the alert (or lack thereof) he hears at the table contributes in some manner to the offense (which is the opponents' putative failure to properly disclose their methods). And that having contributed to it, he is no longer entitled to redress for damage, because the fact he contributed to the problem negates any damage that may have occurred.

 

If that's what you're saying, I don't buy it.

[blackshoe]

You're missing my point, Aqua. Asking for partner's benefit is illegal (Law 73B1).

Duh, of course it is. You are a hard person to agree with, even when I quote you and say pretty much the same thing --that partner's benefit is a byproduct and clarification is the real reason for asking. Whether I know that byproduct might occur should not be a consideration.

I've reread your post. I still don't get a sense that you were agreeing with me, but if you say you are, okay. :blink:

[MFA]

This is what comes of using many words where one will do.

 

You seem to be saying that the player who does not ask when he sees a discrepancy between what he reads on the system card and the alert (or lack thereof) he hears at the table contributes in some manner to the offense (which is the opponents' putative failure to properly disclose their methods). And that having contributed to it, he is no longer entitled to redress for damage, because the fact he contributed to the problem negates any damage that may have occurred.

 

If that's what you're saying, I don't buy it.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Since he realizes the inconsistency before making his bid, he must ask if he wants protection. If he decides to guess for himself between the meanings (choice 3 or 4 above), he is on his own.

 

The laws only protect innocent players. If you don't 'buy' my views then so be it.

[barmar]

You're missing my point, Aqua. Asking for partner's benefit is illegal (Law 73B1).

Asking only for partner's benefit is illegal. Resolving an ambiguity between the CC and the (lack of) alert for yourself is legal; if it also benefits partner, that's OK, too.

 

The only potential problem I can see is a possible UI problem. Suppose partner has forgotten that 2♣ has a different meaning depending on whether 1♣ could be short. Your asking the question could wake him up about this. But if you go this route, your hands would be tied way too much; you can't worry all the time that this might be the moment that partner has forgotten something. And even if it does cause UI, that's not your problem, it's his; if he knows his ethical responsibility, and realizes that the question reminded him, he'll continue bidding as if he'd forgotten. (Good luck finding a partner who is both so ethical and so self-aware.)