Ethical or not?

[dickiegera]

At the table I did not see the 3♣ opening bid and I bid 1♦

 

Ethically can I change this to 3♦? I did not believe I could and I changed my bid to pass.

I could double barring partner or other bids also barring partner. We could have made 5♠.

 

Partner said I should have bid 3 ♦. Ethically I didn't believe I could.

 

Opinions Please

Thank You[hv=pc=n&e=skq5hkq8dqjt4ct43]133|100[/hv][hv=pc=n&e=skq5hkq8dqjt4ct43&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=3c]133|200[/hv]

[Coelacanth]

At the table I did not see the 3♣ opening bid and I bid 1♦

 

Ethically can I change this to 3♦? I did not believe I could and I changed my bid to pass.

I could double barring partner or other bids also barring partner. We could have made 5♠.

 

Partner said I should have bid 3 ♦. Ethically I didn't believe I could.

 

Opinions Please

Thank You[hv=pc=n&e=skq5hkq8dqjt4ct43]133|100[/hv][hv=pc=n&e=skq5hkq8dqjt4ct43&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=3d]133|200[/hv]

Not sure about ethically, but the Laws are very clear on this.

 

You could have bid 3♦ with no further rectification (L27B1a).

You could not have doubled (L27B3).

You could have made any other sufficient bid or a pass, and the auction would have proceeded with your partner being forced to pass at every turn. (L27B2)

[blackshoe]

I'm guessing you meant to show North bidding 3♣ in your bidding diagram, not 3♦. :)

 

I don't know where you get the idea that 3♦ would be unethical. Why?

 

What you could and should have done is call the director. He would give your LHO the opportunity to accept your 1♦ bid, in which case the auction would have proceeded normally from there. If LHO did not accept 1♦, you would be required to substitute "a legal call" (Law 27B). One purpose of calling the TD is to ensure that the rights of both sides are protected.

 

One could argue that it is unethical not to call the TD: Law 10 says "The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications when applicable. Players do not have the right to determine (or waive – see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative." So correcting your IB on your own is illegal — and if you know it's illegal, it's unethical.

 

Generally speaking, once a side has "paid" the rectification for an infraction, they can do what they want, subject to UI constraints, even if they appear to gain advantage thereby (Law 10C4). In the case of an IB, though, the TD is required to adjust the score if he feels the IB provided an advantage to the OS (Law 27D).

 

Bottom line: call the TD, let him explain your options to you. If you think some action might be unethical, ask the TD. But I would say if he tells you one option is to bid 3♦ (and he will), taking that option is almost certainly not unethical.

[axman]

At the table I did not see the 3♣ opening bid and I bid 1♦

 

Ethically can I change this to 3♦? I did not believe I could and I changed my bid to pass.

I could double barring partner or other bids also barring partner. We could have made 5♠.

 

Partner said I should have bid 3 ♦. Ethically I didn't believe I could.

 

Opinions Please

Thank You[hv=pc=n&e=skq5hkq8dqjt4ct43]133|100[/hv][hv=pc=n&e=skq5hkq8dqjt4ct43&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=3d]133|200[/hv]

 

I suspect that the reference to ethics resides in the notion where after 3C that he has no call that is systemic- except Pass; and because such a call after canceling 1D puts partner in the position of improperly fielding the anti-systemic call [in this case 3D] this is unfair. This is particularly true if the correction is not made with alacrity or contains mannerism since otherwise such would all but make clear that the call carries risk.

 

It is my understanding that the WBFLC expects partner to allow for an anti systemic call [as to avoid barring pard] and I think they’re bonkers for it. My view is that someone that doesn’t correct with alacrity and absent mannerism should do the systemic thing. Personally, if I make such a mistake I eat it without making a face.

 

Also, personally, I think pard was resulting.

[mycroft]

The other issue here is that you are allowed to bid 3♦ without harming the auction *and with partner allowed to know that you did so under duress, and wanted to bid 1♦* (to a certain extent)(*). Law 16 does *not apply*, instead we have this:

 

Law 27D: Non-offending Side Damaged

If following the application of [27]B1 above, the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred.

 

There are people who believe that you should accept a lot of insufficient bids because accepting is less damaging to the NOS than L27D. I'm not one of them :-) This auction, effectively nullifying the preempt, of course, is likely to be looked at under L27D...

 

(*) He is not allowed to know that you meant to *open* 1♦, however, as you could have been overcalling 1♣ and didn't see how many clubs it was - especially if you made it clear that you missed the call. He can guess what you were thinking (unless you gave it away).

[blackshoe]

What does a 3♦ overcall of 3♣ show, in this player's system?

[dickiegera]

I'm guessing you meant to show North bidding 3♣ in your bidding diagram, not 3♦. :)

 

I don't know where you get the idea that 3♦ would be unethical. Why?

 

What you could and should have done is call the director. He would give your LHO the opportunity to accept your 1♦ bid, in which case the auction would have proceeded normally from there. If LHO did not accept 1♦, you would be required to substitute "a legal call" (Law 27B). One purpose of calling the TD is to ensure that the rights of both sides are protected.

 

One could argue that it is unethical not to call the TD: Law 10 says "The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications when applicable. Players do not have the right to determine (or waive – see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative." So correcting your IB on your own is illegal — and if you know it's illegal, it's unethical.

 

Generally speaking, once a side has "paid" the rectification for an infraction, they can do what they want, subject to UI constraints, even if they appear to gain advantage thereby (Law 10C4). In the case of an IB, though, the TD is required to adjust the score if he feels the IB provided an advantage to the OS (Law 27D).

 

Bottom line: call the TD, let him explain your options to you. If you think some action might be unethical, ask the TD. But I would say if he tells you one option is to bid 3♦ (and he will), taking that option is almost certainly not unethical.

 

I did call the director and the options were explained. I felt that had I seen the 3 Club bid I would never bid 3 Diamonds with this hand . I probably would double. I am asking this so if and when it comes up again I want to be able to bid 3 diamonds with clear conscious if that bid is ethical.

[blackshoe]

You have various options: you can bid some number (three or more) of diamonds. You can pass. You can bid some number (three or more) of some other suit or in NT. One thing you cannot do is double (see Law 27B3). You are allowed to choose the option that seems most advantageous to your side, and that will be it unless the TD decides your IB provided an advantage to your side. In this case I think that's possible, but not likely. IAC it will depend on the rest of the auction, not just the 3♦ bid. I do not think it's unethical to choose a call you would not have chosen had you seen the 3♣ bid. Especially when it's a clear overbid.

 

Partner has the UI that you have an opening bid with, presumably, at least three diamonds and no more than four cards in either major (plus inferences about the club length). Let him worry about any ethical considerations.

Edited December 7, 2012 by blackshoe
I was wrong about the UI.

[Zelandakh]

Partner has the UI

This is the difficult part. Does partner acually have UI? 27B1a states that "Law 16D does not apply". That sounds like there is no UI but it feels wrong for the information from the withdrawn call to be Authorised. Does anyone know why this is written in as an exception?

[RMB1]

This is the difficult part. Does partner acually have UI? 27B1a states that "Law 16D does not apply". That sounds like there is no UI but it feels wrong for the information from the withdrawn call to be Authorised. Does anyone know why this is written in as an enxception?

 

In the past the laws had harsh mechanical penalties but the offending side were given more chance to recover following their infraction - for instance penalty cards were not unauthorised but there was a 2, 3, ... trick penalty for the revoke.

 

The approach to Law 27 was to heavily restrict what calls the offending side could make to keep the auction open but not deny them any chance to recover by making the insufficient bid unauthorised - with Law 27D as a back-stop if they recover too much. This does not sit so well with Law 27B1b.

[aguahombre]

"Law 16D does not apply". That sounds like there is no UI but it feels wrong for the information from the withdrawn call to be Authorised. Does anyone know why this is written in as an exception?

You are not the only one who thinks that exception feels wrong. We had quite a lot of discussion about it some time in 2011 here on BBF.

 

In this particular case, partner merely has it as a possibility that the 3D replacement bid might not have the typical strength/shape expected.

 

More frequently, partner knows for a fact because of the IB that the replacement bid at a higher level does not have the strength normally expected. 16D not being applicable becomes an advantage to the offending side which opponents at other tables do not have, and that really feels/is wrong. It is naive to think players at the lower levels do not use IB's as a tool.

[mamos]

As others have correctly said there is no ethical issue involved in your bidding 3♦ if that is what you choose to do. What you would normally overcall in this situation is not relevant. What you must not do, is blurt out your reasons for making an insufficient bid "Oh I didn't see the 3♣ bid" or "I thought you opened 1♣" That is UI for partner and TDs are trained to try and prevent you doing such a thing.

 

Bidding 3♦ has a major advantage in that it does not silence partner in this auction. If you make any other call. partner will have to pass throughout. As I understand it, the legal position after you have bid 3♦ is that partner knows that the auction is exactly as it stands ie 3♣ 1♦ corrected to 3♦ and he can draw what conclusions he likes. He will know that you may have chosen 3♦ under some pressure and this is not UI so he may take allowance of this fact.

 

However if the "non-offending side is damaged" by "assistance gained through the infraction" (27D) the TD can adjust. In EBU TD Training we often used a hand where the auction starts 2♠ 1NT. The 1NT bidder was intending to open 1NT (12-14). It would be perfectly proper to replace this with 2NT - even though an overcall would show a stronger hand than opening 1NT, so that partner was not silenced. However if partner raised to 3NT on feeble values (8-9 points) but the contract succeeded with a finesse and a 3-3 break the TD could adjust if in a normal auction after 2♠ was opened it would have been impossible to reach 3NT. I think in this example the most likely outcome was 2♠ passed out -2.

 

Dickie has not commented on the outcome of his hand but I suspect that we would conclude that East would normally pass after 3♣ so if he did better after bidding 3♦ the TD could use 27D.

 

Will the Lawmakers do better in 2017? I'm not holding my breath.

Mike

[gnasher]

Will the Lawmakers do better in 2017? I'm not holding my breath.

 

Have you written to them with your suggestions? You have until December 31st.

[aguahombre]

 

In EBU TD Training we often used a hand where the auction starts 2♠ 1NT. The 1NT bidder was intending to open 1NT (12-14). It would be perfectly proper to replace this with 2NT - even though an overcall would show a stronger hand than opening 1NT, so that partner was not silenced. However if partner raised to 3NT on feeble values (8-9 points) but the contract succeeded with a finesse and a 3-3 break the TD could adjust if in a normal auction after 2♠ was opened it would have been impossible to reach 3NT. I think in this example the most likely outcome was 2♠ passed out -2.

I would be very surprised if this scenario and ruling, as stated, were being taught to TD's in any jurisdiction. Advancer raises to 3NT, totally disregarding the law-given AI that the overcaller is weak (perhaps even doing so because of the personal opinion that he should not have that information). He bids 3NT knowing that in fact his side has at most 23 HCP.

 

If EBU is teaching TD's to adjust, EBU is smoking its sox.

[blackshoe]

This is the difficult part. Does partner acually have UI? 27B1a states that "Law 16D does not apply". That sounds like there is no UI but it feels wrong for the information from the withdrawn call to be Authorised. Does anyone know why this is written in as an exception?

You're right. I've edited my post.

[barmar]

I would be very surprised if this scenario and ruling, as stated, were being taught to TD's in any jurisdiction. Advancer raises to 3NT, totalling disregarding the law-given AI that the overcaller is weak (perhaps even doing so because of the personal opinion that he should not have that information). He bids 3NT knowing that in fact his side has at most 23 HCP.

 

If EBU is teaching TD's to adjust, EBU is smoking its sox.

I agree, this seems like "rub of the green" to me. They got a top despite the irregularity. not because of it, and with a deliberate attempt to avoid taking advantage of it.

[mamos]

aguahombre and barmar have seen fit to mock my example of the application of Law 27D. My response to this is to suggest that I and my TD colleagues in England have spent quite a lot of time and effort in considering and discussing this Law with the aim of producing some consistency to our rulings. Maybe the two gentlemen might bend their minds to consideration of 27D and a situation in which it might apply.

 

dickie originally asked the question "Was it ethical to bid 3♦? We've all answered "Yes" but indeed this is a situation where Law 27D might well be applied by the TD. Having bid 1♦ and discovering that this was insufficient, holding [hv=pc=n&e=skq5hkq8dqjt4ct43]133|100[/hv] the player has a difficult decision to make. Pass will silence partner and may lead to a horrid score where partner has a good hand. Bidding 3♦ at least keeps the auction alive and maybe East West can recover. However if East does bid 3♦ quite properly, West might well choose to bid 3NT on all sorts of hands. The auction will be quite different from one which started 3♣ followed by Pass which I think would be the normal start without the insufficient bid.

 

This is exactly the situation in my notso humble opinion that Law 27D addresses. This is not rub of the green - it is advantage gained through the infraction. If EW reach the contract and outcome they were going to reach without the infraction - no problem but if it is different and there is an advantage then the TD must adjust. Note that 27D applies in two situations where partner is not compelled to Pass throughout the remainder of the auction ie where the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination or where it is corrected by a rectification call.

 

Mike

[aguahombre]

Mamos: Don't confuse my telling you you are wrong with mockery. "If someone really spent a lot of time coming up with that ruling, they might consider some other endeavor." That would be mocking them. There is a difference.

 

Referring to the side situation you presented, not the OP case.

 

In your alleged EBU teaching situation, a player via irregularity has shown 12-14 when he tried to open 1NT not noticing a 2-bid on his right. He makes the bid sufficient by showing what would normally be a very good 15 to 18 hand. His partner with 8-9 raises to game, even though he knows the points are not present for game and even though the current IB rules incorrectly allow him to take the IB into account.

 

It is not a violation of the rules to overbid and get lucky. It would have been within the rules for advancer to pass as well (until the powers fix the unfortunate loophole).

 

There is no legal basis to disallow the 3NT raise.

Edited December 8, 2012 by aguahombre

[gordontd]

In EBU TD Training we often used a hand where the auction starts 2♠ 1NT. The 1NT bidder was intending to open 1NT (12-14). It would be perfectly proper to replace this with 2NT - even though an overcall would show a stronger hand than opening 1NT, so that partner was not silenced. However if partner raised to 3NT on feeble values (8-9 points) but the contract succeeded with a finesse and a 3-3 break the TD could adjust if in a normal auction after 2♠ was opened it would have been impossible to reach 3NT. I think in this example the most likely outcome was 2♠ passed out -2.

I think this example would be better if both players had a balanced 12 count. Clearly responder would raise regardless, and 3NT will often make, but absent the insufficient bid both of them would have passed out 2♠

[paua]

I think this example would be better if both players had a balanced 12 count. Clearly responder would raise regardless, and 3NT will often make, but absent the insufficient bid both of them would have passed out 2♠

 

Or if Advancer has a balanced 10-11 and passed the 2NT overcall, +120.

[barmar]

I didn't mean to mock anyone, either.

 

27D refers to "assistance gained through the infraction". I'm not sure how replacing the insufficient bid with an overbid provides assistance to the OS. There may be assistance from advancer's knowledge that the 3♦ bid may be an overbid. But if the lawgivers didn't want him to be able to use that, why did they explicitly say that 16D doesn't apply? It makes no sense that this should be what 27D is talking about.

[mycroft]

The difference is between "must carefully avoid using the fact that partner has a different hand from the one he's shown" - going out of your way to treat it as the hand it would be, knowing that he's likely to have a hand that would have made a different, more descriptive call, if that hadn't silenced partner - and "contract could well have been different, and damage occurred" - basically, "they wouldn't have got to this contract without the IB" (note, not "without the information from the IB", or "under the restrictions of Law 73").

 

We can remove this loophole, which rarely if ever gets used(*), and make it a clear L16 case; if we do that, we almost have to remove the bidding restrictions on the IB player, or the severity of the rectifiction becomes insanely greater, immediately. If we remove the bidding restrictions, now suddenly instead of 1% of IBs causing a lookback with Law 27D, now about 30% of IB auctions will have to be looked at under Law 16. I bet we'd have a lot more "this isn't fair" resolutions after that (from both sides!)

 

(*) I mean in good games with knowledgable TDs. It rarely gets used in those other games, because the TDs tend not to remember Law 27D exists, and rule it with the restrictions *and Law 16*, or rule it with the restrictions, but without any safety net for the NOS at all. But we shouldn't be worrying about that, should we?

[blackshoe]

I'm not sure I see a "loophole" here. Law 27 explicitly says that 16D does not apply - there is no UI from the withdrawn IB. That's not a "loophole" to me. The law goes on to say that if the OS "gained assistance through the infraction" the score shall be adjusted. Whatever "gained assistance" means, it does not mean "used UI", because there isn't any.

 

Note: the law assumes the IBer doesn't make extraneous remarks ("I didn't see the 3♣ opening"). Such remarks may provide UI independently of the IB itself.

[c_corgi]

"... without assistance gained through the infraction..." is indeed a peculiar phrase. It doesn't say "... without assistance gained through the infraction coupled with a correcion as per 27B1..." The infraction is the insufficient bid rather than the correction. Since the only advantage to be gained through the infraction itself is the information that the offenders hand is more likely to resemble the insufficient bid than the correction, it is strange that this is not dealt with by the UI laws. It seems the intent is to reduce the impact on the offenders, so that they are less constrained than if 16D were in force. They are able to use what would have been UI if 16D were in force to avoid a silly disaster, but they are not allowed to use it to score a goal. So:

 

Or if Advancer has a balanced 10-11 and passed the 2NT overcall, +120.

This is a "goal", which the offending side would not have scored without assistance gained through the infraction. NOS recieve rectification.

 

 

As above, but advancer has only 8-9HCP: The offending side are permitted the auction (2S) 2NT (P) P when it leads to +120, even though they would not be if 16D were in force (advancer must raise). They have used assistance gained through the infraction, but have only to control the random consequences of the infraction. They have scored a "goal", but through 27B1 rather than the infraction. If they were only making 6 tricks in NT, conceding -100, they are permitted to use the infraction to avoid conceding -500 in 3NTX.

 

 

I am not sure I advocate the above approach, but I can't see how else the laws make sense. But like Agua and Barmar, I see no reason to punish the offending side for trying to avoid gaining assistance from the [infraction coupled with 27B1 procedure] by raising to 3NT on 8-9 knowing they were facing 12-14 and getting a lucky +600.

[iviehoff]

In your alleged EBU teaching situation, a player via irregularity has shown 12-14 when he tried to open 1NT not noticing a 2-bid on his right. He makes the bid sufficient by showing what would normally be a very good 15 to 18 hand. His partner with 8-9 raises to game, even though he knows the points are not present for game and even though the current IB rules incorrectly allow him to take the IB into account.

 

It is not a violation of the rules to overbid and get lucky. It would have been within the rules for advancer to pass as well (until the powers fix the unfortunate loophole).

 

There is no legal basis to disallow the 3NT raise.

If UI laws were in operation at this point, it would be quite clear that 3NT was the ethical bid. But the UI laws are not in operation at this point, we have the rather different Law 27D. And Law 27D says we should adjust if the "outcome of the board could well have been different". Now 3N was ex ante a poor contract, but by luck it made. Was "the outcome of the board" the bad 3N contract they played in, or was it the good +400/600 score they luckily got from playing in that bad contract? I think it has to be the score. So I think that Mamos is right, even though it seems quite wrong when compared with the UI laws we are more familiar with.