Can / Should you lie here?

[chasetb]

Let's say you are playing a method (whether Spiral Scan or DCB or something similar), and you have a mess-up in that you denied a specific card you have. Earlier today, I had shown 8-11 HCP, 4243 shape, the A♦, but denied the K♠ (I thought I had denied the K♦ when I bid, but realized my mess up a few seconds later, right before partner explained it to opps). My only top honors were A♦, K♠, Q♥ How would you recover, not being able to show/fabricate any Jacks?

 

I'll post the hand here in 2-3 days. Thanks to everyone who votes or posts, and doubly for anyone who votes, and posts their reasoning why!

[Fluffy]

you should try to hit a card partner has so he understands there has been a missunderstanding at some point. This will make partner foret about what honors you've got and focus on the part he can rely: 4243 8-11.

 

Showing a lot of cards in one shot without committing too much sounds like the best you can do. ending up in 5 something hopefully.

[Vampyr]

The problem is that you have UI, so you can't do anything except proceed under the same misapprehension you had when you thought you were denying ♦K rather than ♠K. I should have thought this was obvious, and am surprised that another poster also didn't understand your ethical obligations.

[Free]

With screens it would be quite easy imo: you messed up so don't mess it up more and just don't lie about another King or ♠Q.

 

Without screens it doesn't matter if you realized before or after partner explained, you have UI and should continue bidding like you don't know you messed up. This may result in showing another top honor or not, that really depends if you just forgot a step or if you mixed up the order of the suits.

 

Anecdote: My worst experience in this regard was when playing with screens and partner asked my entire hand. I show my 4=4=1=4 (I held ♠AKQ and a side suit Q) and suddenly I realized that RHO had doubled one of my partner's relays 2 rounds ago! I didn't have UI, but I could calculate what I had shown: a 1=4=5=3! Try to show ♠AKQ when holding a singleton... Partner asked about QP's, I showed 7 (because I knew I could make it clear to partner that I made an error this way: showing 6 might suggest I hold 2 Aces), he started the DCB scan and I showed only my Q. He thought like 10 minutes because it didn't add up. It was impossible for me to hold only ♠A and one other top honor and 7 QP's. He settled for 5♦ in a 5-1 fit and I went 1 down.

I still wonder if it's sometimes possible for someone to figure out where it all went wrong, especially when your partner 'never' messes up. Like in my case, my partner was the one to miss a step somewhere from time to time, so he thought he made the mistake but couldn't figure out where exactly. He didn't even think that I made an error, but even if he'd realize that I'm not flawless either, where did it happen? And how soon was I able to try to recover? A relatively obvious moment to make a mistake is after the Dbl, but then what?

[gwnn]

The problem is that you have UI, so you can't do anything except proceed under the same misapprehension you had when you thought you were denying ♦K rather than ♠K. I should have thought this was obvious, and am surprised that another poster also didn't understand your ethical obligations.

It's unlikely OP was 'woken up' by any alert since this is probably above 3NT already and opps know better than to ask about each call.

[Vampyr]

It's unlikely OP was 'woken up' by any alert since this is probably above 3NT already and opps know better than to ask about each call.

 

Well, whatever. A explanation was given. That is all I know.

[gwnn]

Well, whatever. A explanation was given. That is all I know.

Ah. Reading problems again, sorry. I agree with you 100% then.

[Trinidad]

I think you should add another option: "Do what I am ethically obligated to do: Make the call that I would make thinking that I denied the ♦K."

 

Probably this is the call that you thought will show the ♠K. It would not surprise me if that would be the call that -according to your correct agreements- shows the ♦K.

 

Rik

[Fluffy]

Without screens it doesn't matter if you realized before or after partner explained, you have UI and should continue bidding like you don't know you messed up. This may result in showing another top honor or not, that really depends if you just forgot a step or if you mixed up the order of the suits.

 

Why doesn't it matter? he realized before UI was given, so the UI didn't change anything.

[dake50]

I have UI: I have SK but my bid denied SK.

I am obligated to bid as if I didn't HAVE that SK.

[Trinidad]

Why doesn't it matter? he realized before UI was given, so the UI didn't change anything.

Yes, the UI does change something. There are two ways to look at this:

 

1) pragmatic

There is no TD in the world who is going to believe that you realized you misbid, just before the UI told you that you misbid. So while it may be the truth, be realistic and don't go there. That means act as if the UI woke you up, with all the consequences.

 

2) legalistic

The fact that you figured out that you misbid before the UI, doesnot make the UI that you misbid go away. That UI is still there and it may still limit your options.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

There is no TD in the world who is going to believe that you realized you misbid, just before the UI told you that you misbid. So while it may be the truth, be realistic and don't go there. That means act as if the UI woke you up, with all the consequences.

 

I don't know if it's so much the case that the TD won't believe you. It's just that this has no bearing on the ruling.

[gnasher]

If you knew before you heard partner's explanation that you'd misbid, it is not logical to continue to bid as though in ignorance of the misbid. So it is certainly legal to try to get out of the mess using the knowledge that you've misbid.

 

As a matter of TD practice, the director will simply disregard any unsupported claim that you'd remembered the agremeent before receiving the UI. This is necessary to avoid the TD having to decide whether to believe you or not.

[Vampyr]

Duplicate.

[Vampyr]

If you knew before you heard partner's explanation that you'd misbid, it is not logical to continue to bid as though in ignorance of the misbid. So it is certainly legal to try to get out of the mess using the knowledge that you've misbid.

 

I don't think this is right, Andy; in fact I think that you have contradicted yourself. Anyway if this thread gets moved into the correct forum (mods?) we can hear from the likes of Gordon and Robin.

[gnasher]

I don't think this is right, Andy; in fact I think that you have contradicted yourself.

Then why don't you tell me where I've got it wrong, and tell me which of my statements contradict each other?

[lamford]

If you knew before you heard partner's explanation that you'd misbid, it is not logical to continue to bid as though in ignorance of the misbid. So it is certainly legal to try to get out of the mess using the knowledge that you've misbid.

To "try to get out of the mess" sounds like a breach of 73C. If you know that you have misbid, you just select from LAs one not demonstrably suggested by the UI. And 16B says "using the methods of the partnership", so that is what you use to decide on the LAs, not the methods you think or thought they are. We do have Law 75, which is entitled 'Mistaken Explanation or Mistaken Call', neither of which applies here, but would make you continue to use the mistaken methods in some situations, even when they are in direct opposition to Law 16B1(b). No doubt some say that 16B1(b) does not mean what it says in cases like this either.

 

'When I make a bid,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

 

And I agree this thread is in the wrong forum.

[lamford]

In addition, I think that if Law 73C produces a different answer to Law 16B, then you should select the LA that is likely to be least favourable to your side.

[Finch]

I don't think this is right, Andy; in fact I think that you have contradicted yourself. Anyway if this thread gets moved into the correct forum (mods?) we can hear from the likes of Gordon and Robin.

 

I see no contradiction.

If you knew you had misbid before you received any UI, you technically have no legal obligations at all related to the UI, you can do anything you like to try and recover.

However, the fact that you are the only person who knows that the UI told you nothing, means that legally the TD will rule as if the UI was what "woke you up". So, in practice, you are constrained just as much by the UI as if it was what had woken you up.

 

Not a contradiction, just a bid of pedantry.

[Vampyr]

I see, Frances. Andy's post was too subtle for me.

[Fluffy]

I had never read that TD will disregard any claim that you had realized before the UI took place. Is this on an english book?

[Fluffy]

I don't think this is right, Andy; in fact I think that you have contradicted yourself. Anyway if this thread gets moved into the correct forum (mods?) we can hear from the likes of Gordon and Robin.

 

Just because a hoard of secretary birds have managed to hijack a judgement topic into another thing doesn't mean it has to be moved, it could be copied and cut so you can discuss your stuff while guys who actually consider the real question asked by the OP can stay on topic.

[gnasher]

To "try to get out of the mess" sounds like a breach of 73C. If you know that you have misbid, you just select from LAs one not demonstrably suggested by the UI.

73C forbids you from taking advantage of UI. Information that you already possessed is AI. If the UI simply repeats the AI, acting on the AI is not taking advantage of the UI: it is taking advantage of the AI.

 

The "L" in "LA" stands for "logical". If the AI tells you that an action is illogical, it's not an LA.

 

Compare these situations:

(1) I bid 2♣ in response to my 1NT. I know that this is Stayman. Then partner explains it as Stayman, giving me UI. However, my LAs are the actions that were logical before I received the UI. Hence I can legally assume partner is responding to Stayman.

(2) I bid 4♣, intending to deny ♦K. I realise that I have made the wrong bid, and actually I denied ♠K. Then partner explains that I have denied ♠K, giving me UI. However, my LAs are the actions that were logical before I recevied the UI. Hence I can legally assume that partner thinks I have denied ♠K.

 

From a legal point of view, the two situations are exactly equivalent. In (2), it is perfectly legal to act on the knowledge that you made a mistake. But there's no point in doing so, because you will still have your score adjusted.

[gnasher]

Just because a hoard of secretary birds have managed to hijack a judgement topic into another thing doesn't mean it has to be moved, it could be copied and cut so you can discuss your stuff while guys who actually consider the real question asked by the OP can stay on topic.

But we have answered the real question. A bridge problem that includes partner's explanation is, by definition, partly a UI problem. And the complete solution is the first half of Trinidad's post (no 11).

 

I had never read that TD will disregard any claim that you had realized before the UI took place. Is this on an english book?

I believe it's a universal approach, but I may be wrong. I think any other approach is unworkable.

 

Suppose that we required the director to use his judgement in this situatiion. Then three people all have the same auction. They make the wrong response to a relay, hear partner's explanation, and then appear to act on the knowledge from the explanation. All three claim that they remembered their methods just before they heard partner's explanation.

 

Two of the players are Mother Teresa and Dr Somebody from Germany. The director believes Mother Teresa, so she keeps her score. He disbelieves Dr Somebody, and adjusts his score to 6NTx-5. Everybody nods approvingly.

 

The third player is a young bridge pro from Madrid. What should the director to do?

[lamford]

(1) I bid 2♣ in response to my 1NT. I know that this is Stayman. Then partner explains it as Stayman, giving me UI. However, my LAs are the actions that were logical before I received the UI. Hence I can legally assume partner is responding to Stayman.

A better comparison with that might be that you bid 2♣ which you think is Stayman but partner alerts it, and explains it when asked as a puppet to 2♦. There are several possibilities

a) you forgot that it was a puppet to 2♦ but you remembered that you made a mistake before partner bid

b) you made a mistake and realised your error because of partner's unexpected alert.

c) you are certain that it was Stayman but partner has mistakenly alerted.

 

a) and b) are rolled into one, and the TD indeed assumes you were woken up by the alert - that is accepted practice. However, a correct application of 16b means that you should select your LAs now using the methods of the partnership, but Law 75 indicates that you must instead pretend that you still think you are playing Stayman (whether or not you are), in all three cases, and interpret partner's response of 2♦ as denying a four-card major (but you alert it as a forced puppet). And it is accepted practice also that Law 75 overrides the wrongly worded Law 16B.

 

And on the question at the start of this thread, I presume that I am able to show the king of spades now, in what I briefly believed were the methods when I denied the king of diamonds. I would imagine that I was planning to show the king of spades in some way or another if asked, and so I would make that bid now.