Is this ethical, is there recourse?

[rduran1216]

3 board rounds, on the 2nd board.

 

LHO opens 2NT pass 3C pass 3D pass 3NT, puppet stayman sequence. Partner leads the Q of diamonds. dummy has 92, declarer holds AJxxx. After I play the 3, declarer asks my partner what kind of carding we play, and then asks, "is the 3 encouraging in upside down?"

 

3rd board auction. pass pass 1D pass 1H pass (45 second hesitation) pass 2D x all pass.

 

doubler holds AQx Axxx xx xxxx.

 

I unfortunately let my instincts about this particular pair's questionable tactics through 2 years of playing against them get the better of me and spoke my piece.

 

From an ethcal point of view, is there anything to be done?

[gordontd]

Can you be a bit more explicit about what the issues are as you see them?

[iviehoff]

The two cases are quite different.

After I play the 3, declarer asks my partner what kind of carding we play, and then asks, "is the 3 encouraging in upside down?"

That could either be innocent incomprehension, or it could be a cheeky attempt to ask you what is in your hand. If your attempt to describe your signalling was to say no more than that you play upside-down, then you kind of reaped what you sowed, as you didn't give a complete explanation, and set yourself up for a clarification question. Your response should of course be to give a complete explanation of your signalling, and then call the director if there is any more pressure.

 

3rd board auction. pass pass 1D pass 1H pass (45 second hesitation) pass 2D x all pass.

doubler holds AQx Axxx xx xxxx.

Here we certainly can do something, assuming that there is an abuse, but I'm currently unconvinced there is an abuse. It's a bit unclear, but I'm presuming from the fact that you give me the doubler's hand that it was the doubler's partner that hesitated.

 

A player's break in tempo gives his partner "unauthorised information", which he is legally required to bend over backwards to avoid taking advantage of. The correct procedure would be to obtain the opponents' agreement that the hesitation occurred some time fairly shortly afterwards (eg, after the double occurred, and call the director if they fail to agree); then call the director at the end of the hand if you think you have been damaged by the action taken by the hesitator's partner. This is a rather off-beat case, and double does not at first glance look like an abuse, rather it looks like the only practical call (assuming 2D was an attempt to play in diamonds).

[campboy]

In the second case anything other than double is on another planet. Partner has opened 1♦, we have a likely three defensive tricks and two diamonds, neither of which partner expects, and we are supposed to let them play 2♦ undoubled?

 

I think the main thing to say here, though, is that the way to raise a concern is to call the director and ask for a ruling. I don't know what speaking your piece involved, but you should be careful not to make any accusations.

[Bad_Wolf]

Im not so sure.

 

We had this auction 2 months ago and pard had xx Qxxx Kxxxx xx for her 1d and 2dX might well have made. She didnt pass slowly however.

[gordontd]

Im not so sure.

 

We had this auction 2 months ago and pard had xx Qxxx Kxxxx xx for her 1d and 2dX might well have made. She didnt pass slowly however.

Your partner opened 1D with a 5-count? No surprise that 2D might well have made for the opposition, with you as a passed hand.

[Hanoi5]

In these hands you have nothing to do. The question is one to mislead the opener into playing another diamond I suppose, you might call the Director but I don't think there's nothing really he can do. Just don't pay attention to what they ask. On the second one you brought the demise to yourself by bidding 2♦.

[blackshoe]

The answer to your question has two parts, both of which have been given upthread: one, don't make comments about opponents' ethics, and two, if you have a problem, call the director and give the director the facts (and not your opinions about opponents' motivation or whatever).

 

I would say the correct time to obtain agreement about an action which might pass UI is before the perpetrator's partner takes any action — in your second case, when the BIT occurs, and before the double. That way, you ensure at least that the partner is aware that he has UI before he does anything with it.

[Bbradley62]

From an ethcal point of view, is there anything to be done?

Yes. Depending on exactly what you said, you could be hit with a 1/4 board disciplinary penalty under ACBL's Zero Tolerance Policy.

 

Any time you think your opponents' actions are inappropriate, call the director. In these two cases, you'll almost certainly be told that you're wrong. If you think there's a bad pattern worth noting, fill out a Recorder Form.

[nige1]

The answer to your question has two parts, both of which have been given upthread: one, don't make comments about opponents' ethics, and two, if you have a problem, call the director and give the director the facts (and not your opinions about opponents' motivation or whatever). I would say the correct time to obtain agreement about an action which might pass UI is before the perpetrator's partner takes any action — in your second case, when the BIT occurs, and before the double. That way, you ensure at least that the partner is aware that he has UI before he does anything with it.

Agree with Blackshoe. Immediately after a hesitation ask opponents to confirm its occurrence. If they disagree, then call the director immediately. In either case, if you subsequently suspect that an opponent may have used unauthorised information, then restrain the temptation to "speak your piece". Instead, just call the director. If you didn't call the director at the time, then be wary of publishing potentially libellous versions of events, later.

[CSGibson]

In the first case, I have a standard reply for opponents who ask "what does the 3 mean", which is that I would be happy to explain my carding methods, but I am not going to interpret my partner's signal for them. I then explain our carding methods.

 

Edit: OK, so I was going fast & didn't notice the declarer's holding. I'd call the director & file a recorder for unethical behavior, given that the declarer knows better.

[mycroft]

"if that card is low, he likes it; if it's high, he doesn't."

 

"so, is the 3 low or high?" :-)

 

Not at the table, but when explaining why this question is inappropriate, I tend to respond "well, if you tell me your holding in the suit, I'll be able to tell you." or more clearly asking about the 3, "so, do you have the 2?" At the table, I just reiterate my agreement or say "that depends on who has the rest of the suit."

 

But this is a question that many people ask because they don't realize what they're asking; and it's an issue for education, not condemnation (usually). I would agree that if there is a pair that does a lot of this, a word to the club TD will be in order - but after that, drop it. If you're not going to call at the time, that's all you can do.

[rduran1216]

when you hold AJxxx and LHO leads the Q, you know its from KQ10xx, so its obvious the 3 by RHO is a singleton. You've played against this pair for probably 500 hands, and the declarer is not an amateur. Maybe he forgot your agreements, but again this is following a long time of questionable play.

 

On the last board, an opening in 3rd seat could be light according to their agreements, so I'd say counting us for beating 2D is questionable, after the very long hesitation and pass though, you can eliminate partner's chances of having a 10 count. That seems like an UI situation.

[Phil]

when you hold AJxxx and LHO leads the Q, you know its from KQ10xx, so its obvious the 3 by RHO is a singleton. You've played against this pair for probably 500 hands, and the declarer is not an amateur. Maybe he forgot your agreements, but again this is following a long time of questionable play.

 

On the last board, an opening in 3rd seat could be light according to their agreements, so I'd say counting us for beating 2D is questionable, after the very long hesitation and pass though, you can eliminate partner's chances of having a 10 count. That seems like an UI situation.

 

I totally agree with this. A comment like "is the 3 encouraging?" is the lowest form of sleaze at the table. Frankly, I'm really surprised at a lot of the comments in this thread, since they either demonstrate someone naive or complacent.

 

On the 2nd board, if the pause came from a newer player, I wouldn't sweat it. Maybe they were thinking about rebidding a five card major. Maybe inviting. Who knows?

 

But with this pair, I'm not so sure.

[cherdano]

Was your partner a beginner?

[rduran1216]

Was your partner a beginner?

 

Every player at the table besides me is GLM or above. I was the player holding a singleton against 3NT and dummy for 2D x. I mean I have general means and standards when it comes to slimy play. It also isn't the style of the long beach club to call director on every discretion, until outsiders come and harass, we generally take care of our own problems and dont be nitpicky. Unfortunately, this situation just wreaked of ethical breach.

[Bbradley62]

when you hold AJxxx and LHO leads the Q, you know its from KQ10xx...

Is this a standard lead?

[rduran1216]

Is this a standard lead?

 

against 3NT, yes.

[cherdano]

Every player at the table besides me is GLM or above. I was the player holding a singleton against 3NT and dummy for 2D x. I mean I have general means and standards when it comes to slimy play. It also isn't the style of the long beach club to call director on every discretion, until outsiders come and harass, we generally take care of our own problems and dont be nitpicky. Unfortunately, this situation just wreaked of ethical breach.

You are missing my point. If your partner isn't a beginner, and he sees declarer pointing out that the lowest card in the suit is encouraging playing ud, he should conclude (against this declarer) that he should switch.

You will gain much more of an edge from reading them instead of trying to gain from director calls.

[Bbradley62]

when you hold AJxxx and LHO leads the Q, you know its from KQ10xx...

Is this a standard lead?

against 3NT, yes.

Cool. Having been away for a decade, I don't always know what's now standard. In the old days, Q from KQT9(x) was standard, and marked as such on ACBL convention cards.

[aguahombre]

when you hold AJxxx and LHO leads the Q, you know its from

 

 

Is this a standard lead?

 

Depends on your definition of standard. It is common, but the ACBL CC does not have it in BOLD, so you need to mark it. Another thread a while back talked about the "power leads" (K, vs A or Q to ask for unblock or count).

 

Of the top pairs who have CC's posted on line, very few use the Queen as the power lead any more. Ham and Z are a rare exception.

[peachy]

Depends on your definition of standard. It is common, but the ACBL CC does not have it in BOLD, so you need to mark it. Another thread a while back talked about the "power leads" (K, vs A or Q to ask for unblock or count).

 

Of the top pairs who have CC's posted on line, very few use the Queen as the power lead any more. Ham and Z are a rare exception.

 

In the cards that I have, KQ109 lead against NT, the Q actually *is* in bold. Maybe you might look again, or do I have old version of card? I don't think so, got them just a month ago at a sectional.

[G_R__E_G]

There's a pretty big difference between KQ10x and KQ109 when it comes to wanting the jack unblocked.

[aguahombre]

yeh...Q is bold vs NT. K is bold vs suit. Since we do the same vs both, I overlooked that.

 

Anyway, the thing about top pairs using the K as the only power card is still valid.

[chrism]

Without excusing declarer's question in any way, your side also appears not to be faultless in case 1, assuming that your treatment of Q leads against NT is typical. When asked about your carding, full disclosure is required, so your partner's response should have been along the lines of "normally upside down count and attitude, but in this context partner is expected to unblock the J if he holds it, and otherwise give count, so specifically the D3 denies the DJ and, if it is a low card and not a singleton, would show an even number of cards" [i know, everyone can see the D2, but we are not obliged to think for declarer]. "Upside down" (unless that is indeed the sum total of your carding agreements) is neither complete nor accurate.