Ethics and the Passout Seat

[blackshoe]

When you are a player it is not your job to educate. It is your job to communicate. And communication is about finding the common denominator. In this specific case that means you will have to rephrase from the bridge jargon "please explain the auction" to simple English "Could you tell me what each bid (1♥, 2♣, etc.) told about the hand?".

 

Rik

Some things annoy me. Sometimes, when something annoys me, I use hyperbole in describing my reactions. For a better approach, and one I actually use, see my post #20 in this thread.

[blackshoe]

Maybe someone has said this already, but for the soon-to-be opening leader, asking before passing has a practical effect. It keeps the bid-cards on the table while the questions are being asked. I don't believe (even if required in some jurisdictions) those cards are routinely kept out during the clarification period.

It would be nice if this were true, and the bidding cards stayed on the table while the questions are being asked, but it is often not, at least around here.

 

As declarer or opening leader I tend to leave my bidding cards out until the opening lead is faced, although as declarer I used to get "you gonna pick that up?" from opening leader before his lead. Nowadays, they just ignore me. I wouldn't do it as opening leader's partner, for fear of accusations of cheating.

[Vampyr]

That is a shame. You quoted me and replied just above it; I responded. Short-term memory issue?

 

No, just that you said something about wording and it didn't make sense to me, and still doesn't. The OP is in a jurisdiction where the bidding cards are left out until the opening lead is faced, and how you worded your comment about other jurisdictions is as irrelevant as the comment itself.

[Vampyr]

If you ask before passing when you always intend to pass, it will mislead the opponents that you might not have passed if the answers had been different.

 

Why are people having so much trouble with this concept?

[Trinidad]

If you ask before passing when you always intend to pass, it will mislead the opponents that you might not have passed if the answers had been different.

Why are people having so much trouble with this concept?

Because the laws on misleading make clear that this has nothing to do with it.

 

Rule 1 on misleading: Everybody takes inferences at their own risk.

Rule 2: It is only misleading if you don't have a good bridge reason for your action.

 

In this case, you have two good bridge reasons to ask before you pass:

- you reduce UI to partner

- in the case of MI your partner will be able to change his pass, which he won't be able to do if you pass first.

 

If an opponent takes the wrong inference and thinks that you wanted to bid, because he overlooked the two very good bridge reasons above for your asking first and then pass, then that is his problem.

 

I cannot say anything kind about the idea that the opponent would be entitled to know whether you thought about another call or not. But in general minimizing UI to partner has the side effect of minimizing AI to the opponents. This would actually be a third good bridge reason in the above list.

 

Not leading opponents is very different from misleading opponents.

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

No, just that you said something about wording and it didn't make sense to me, and still doesn't. The OP is in a jurisdiction where the bidding cards are left out until the opening lead is faced, and how you worded your comment about other jurisdictions is as irrelevant as the comment itself.

If you want to believe that in your jurisdiction those rules are always followed, fine...consider what I said irrelevant.

[f0rdy]

If you want to believe that in your jurisdiction those rules are always followed, fine...consider what I said irrelevant.

 

IME (in the same jurisdiction, but obviously there may be variation between regions/clubs), it varies with the auction; I think in a protracted auction the declaring side (at least) will leave the cards out 95+% of the time, whereas after 1NT - 3NT either 3 or 4 players will remove their cards pretty swiftly.

 

I think it's the "minor" (as opposed to major rules like making sufficient bids and bidding in turn) rule concerning the auction followed most frequently; failing to make a 2nd or 3rd pass, ignoring the Stop card by Stopper or Stoppee, and half-pulling cards from the box are much more common.

[gnasher]

If you ask before passing when you always intend to pass, it will mislead the opponents that you might not have passed if the answers had been different.

Perhaps it will mislead some opponents, but that doesn't make it illegal. It's your turn: you have the right to ask questions.

 

You don't even need a bridge reason for the questions. You can ask because you're thinking of taking up the opponents' methods, or because you like the sound of your own voice, or because today's date is a prime number.

 

Even asking a question with the specific objective of misleading an opponent appears to be legal, though we might overcome that problem by pretending that a question is a type of "remark".