[kenrexford]

---

I had this weird ethics problem arise. Partner opened 1♦ in a field that he knew well against opponents he knew well, but I knew no one at the table except partner, of course. My RHO passed. I responded 1♠.

LHO now pops in with 2♠, and partner bids 3♥.

It seemed to me that 2♠ should be natural, but a lot of people play this as Michaels. Looking at my hand, I guessed Michaels. But, no one asked any questions. This became troubling.

If I asked, I would have to assume, it seems, that partner already knew the answer and acted upon that knowledge. However, by asking, I would be advertising (possibly) that my spades were very good (making the normal meaning suspect). So, I assumed that which seemed obvious (Michaels) and bid accordingly, without asking questions.

As it turned out, humorously, my partner did already know their agreement -- natural. However, LHO had forgotten their agreement and bid 2♠ intended as Michaels.

I had assumed that 3♥ was a power raise of spades; partner meant it as hearts. I cuebid 4♣ as a courtesy cue (and admittedly as a hedge), and partner bid 4♦ (which I took as a cue). I bid 4♠ as a signoff, and partner bid 5♦. I decided that this was a cue, but I bid 5♥ as Last Train (secretly hoping that partner had 5♥/6♦ if I was wrong, and some serious playing skill).

5♥ scored poorly.

I think I did right, ethically?

[jonottawa]

I think you're allowed to ask. I'm not crazy about 5♥ in an auction you have good reason to suspect has gone off the rails.

[TimG]

My guess would have been that a natural 2♠ overcall, though "standard", would have to be alerted. But, the ACBL alert chart seems to indicate that an alert is required only when a "direct cue-bid of natural opening bid played as natural".

It seems to me that if natural and michaels are both possible, the meaning of your partner's bids depends upon the meaning of their call, and the lack of an alert does not indicate one way or the other, you ought to be free to ask. So, I think you went out of your way to disadvantage yourself.

[barmar]

The Laws say you're not allowed to USE UI. There's no law against transmitting UI via your questions, although it's obviously better to avoid putting him in that position if you don't need to. So unless the only reason you're asking the question is for partner's benefit, there's no ethical problem.

[mrdct]

Is an artificial 2♠ bid alertable in your jurisduction?

In any case, I'm going to ask what 2♠ at my turn to call as I can't really work out what 3♥ means unless I know what 2♠ means.

I think asking about 2♠ in an auction like this gives away minimal information as it's just bridge - you can't possibly know what to do over 3♥ unless you know what 2♠ means.

[MFA]

I can't figure out if you are being over-ethical or masochistic, but please just ask what 2♠ is next time.

[hanp]

kenrexford, on Oct 1 2010, 06:50 PM, said:

I think I did right, ethically?

I think you did badly, foolishly.

[cherdanno]

So everybody else at the table knew what 2S meant. And you had good reasons to assume that everybody else knew.
Why don't you ask?

[Phil]

I think you created problems for yourself unnecessarily.

I don't believe 2♠ is alertable whether or not its natural or Michaels. Its meaning is very material to you not only because it determines how you approach the hand regardless how strong your spades are but also because you have an obligation to alert the opponents of the nature of 3♥ if it is a spade raise. I dont think 3♥ is considered a cue that isn't alertable.

So I would ask about 2♠ at my turn and I would advise partner that its a good idea to ask as well. Even though he cannot ask for your benefit just having the opponents understand that 'you know that I know' seems to minimize problems later on.

I don't think you transmit either any UI by asking because you need to know to determine the nature of 3♥.

Assumption is the mother of all f~[€ ups.

[TheoKole]

In your ops position I play the 2 !S call as natural.

Also I would play (1 ♦ ) P (1 ♠) 2 ♦ as natural but obviously I would need a much better suit than the 2 ♠ over-call. This is not alertable in my jurisdiction if it is natural.

However some people play 2 ♠ as Michael's, I have no idea why, when you can have a takeout double and Unusual NT to describe your hand to your partner.

I think you should have asked, as should your partner, because people screw up in this game. Once describing their agreement I would make sure that they bid according to their hand AND the agreement.

Since I play the Unusual vs Unusual convention, my bids would have different meanings according to what their agreements are.

Something very similar to this happened to me when ops where playing Ghestem.

I asked and his partner explained their agreement. It seems that his partner had screwed up and bid our 9 card ♥ fit with my partner. His p with 4 cards in ♥ and 2 ♦ did not put him back to ♥.

After the director was called, he gave them a stern lecture about bidding according to their agreements, penalized them with an 0 % in matchpoints tournament, and put the partner of the Ghestem bidder on notice of disiplinary (sp?) action if it happens again.

The partner by the time the bidding had got to 5 ♦ knew that his partner had screwed up in the first place. Instead of taking his lumps like a man, he tried to plead innocent and con the director. The director understood everything that had happened and ruled accordingly.

Theo