Because you tank passed, p

[gwnn]

What is a polite way of stating the above as a response to 'why didn't you compete?' Usually I just shrug and say yea I didnt think it was a good idea. But a lie is a lie is a lie.

[Vampyr]

What is a polite way of stating the above as a response to 'why didn't you compete?' Usually I just shrug and say yea I didnt think it was a good idea. But a lie is a lie is a lie.

 

Why not just tell partner that you felt constrained because of his hesitation, and that the action you felt was normal or best was not clear-cut enough to meet the standard of "carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information"? Or refer to L16 instead of 73, and say that you felt that there were LAs to bidding on, and the latter was suggested by the UI?

 

It sounds like your partner is unaware of the obligations of players who are in possession of UI. It would be better for him to learn what they are, so that he can try to avoid transmitting UI in sensitive situations. Of course this is sometimes impossible, so it would also be good for him to know that after hesitating for a long time, it may be best for him to take the final decision for the partnership.

[Zelandakh]

"I would have doubled back in normally but it would have been unethical after your pause," seems to fit the bill. I think it is quite important to be able to say this to a regular partner so a) they understand you are ethical, and b) they know which hands you will compete with. If you tell them you did not think competing was a good idea, they are going to think even longer the next time wondering if they should bid with their inappropriate PoS hand to protect against your passing it out.

[billw55]

If I worry my partner is oversensitive, I will try to phrase it in a way that emphasizes my decision, rather than his hesitation. Perhaps "I didn't want it to look like I was taking advantage of your tempo" or such. Small differences in wording can make all the difference as to whether the listener perceives blame or criticism.

[TimG]

"I would have doubled back in normally but it would have been unethical after your pause,"

That seems a little harsh, especially given that gwnn is concerned enough to be asking here. I'd temper with things like "I thought" and "possible BIT" rather than jump in there with "unethical".

[nigel_k]

It's fine to say you chose not to bid because of the UI. It's not an accusation. Sometimes it's correct to pass after tanking, even though that it may create an ethical issue for partner. Why deny the obvious?

[barmar]

That seems a little harsh, especially given that gwnn is concerned enough to be asking here. I'd temper with things like "I thought" and "possible BIT" rather than jump in there with "unethical".

You're not calling partner unethical, you're saying that YOU would have been unethical if you'd done something different as a consequence.

[billw55]

You're not calling partner unethical, you're saying that YOU would have been unethical if you'd done something different as a consequence.

+1

 

That is exactly the distinction I was trying to get at. Partner did nothing wrong; and I wanted to be sure that I did nothing wrong either. That is the message I want partner to get.

[TimG]

You're not calling partner unethical, you're saying that YOU would have been unethical if you'd done something different as a consequence.

 

It sounds to me like you are saying partner's actions put you in a position where you had to take a lesser action because of ethics. His BIT was not unethical, but it put you in a position where your ethics could have been compromised.

[Cyberyeti]

I wasn't sure we'd keep it in the appeal if I bid, so it didn't seem right to do so.

[barmar]

It sounds to me like you are saying partner's actions put you in a position where you had to take a lesser action because of ethics. His BIT was not unethical, but it put you in a position where your ethics could have been compromised.

Precisely. I was in the same situation a couple of weeks ago. See:

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/56334-was-i-constrained/

 

When the hand was over, and it became clear that we could have made a game if I'd bid one more, I explained that I felt constrained after partner's long tank.

 

I don't see much difference between this and saying something like "Since you didn't cue-bid clubs, I thought we had two losers there, and signed off." In both cases, you're explaining how partner's actions during the auction influenced your judgement. In one case it's about cards, in the other case it's about ethical considerations, but it's the same kind of post mortem.

[lalldonn]

Get in your question first "why did you tank me out of the auction pard?"

[barmar]

Of course, the passive-aggressive approach, because we know how well that works for partnership harmony. :)