[SimonFa]

I have only recently started playing in club tournaments and am still trying to get my head round some of the ethics. I have read the EBU Orange Book but as a newcomer its still all a bit confusing.

1. This happened very early on and I'm still not sure I have been given an adequate answer. Over ops open we play Michaels cue bid shows highest and lowest unbid suit, Unusual NT shows two lowest unbid suits and 3♣ shows highest and lowest unbid suit.

RHO opened 1♠ and I bid 3♣ showing 5/5 in clubs and hearts and 6-11 HCP. Partner alerted and then bid 3♦. I was just pondering what to do and had decided to bid 3♥ when RHO asked for an explanation. Partner incorrectly said I was showing diamonds and clubs. As hearts were my stronger suit I continued with my bid and we ended up making 4H.

I corrected partners explanation at the end of the bidding and our inexperienced opponents took it no further.

Q: Was I under any obligations once partner had made the incorrect explanation and I knew partners misunderstanding? I did ask a local TD the following week and he said it was opps tough luck for asking, but I'm not convinced.

2. Last night I picked up this hand ♠]ATxxx, ♥QJ, ♦Kx,♣xxxx Vul against not. We open on a count of 19 but I wasn't going to open as the 4 club card suit didn't have any HCP, but I was ready to bid 1♠ over 1♣/♦/♥. RHO opened 2NT which was alerted. At our club this bid isn't normally alerted so I asked what it meant as I till had in mind that I might be able bid. It turned out to be 5-10HCP and both minors and forcing for 1 round.

I thought for a short while, maybe 20secs, and decided to pass and see what happened. LHO bid 3♣ and partner went straight in at 4♥. RHO "reserved his rights" because of the "unusual bidding pattern" to be sure partner did have a a 4H hand - he did and we made 11 tricks.

Q: In these situations do I have time to think and pass or am I obliged to bid if I ask for an explanation?

Thanks in advance.

[Antrax]

I asked a similar question a while back, and got a rather useful link: http://www.bridgebas...ules-somewhere/

[RMB1]

 SimonFa, on 2011-May-03, 05:50, said:

I have read the EBU Orange Book but as a newcomer its still all a bit vague.

Some of the Orange Book is unclear because there is not unanimity on the committee that is responsible for it. Some of those different voices post here, as do others who have to operate the Orange Book regulations.

But your title says 2 ethics questions: ask away. You will get more that two answers.

[SimonFa]

Thanks for quick responses but as you will see I inadvertently ht the send button before finishing

[mjj29]

 SimonFa, on 2011-May-03, 05:50, said:

I have only recently started playing in club tournaments and am still trying to get my head round some of the ethics. I have read the EBU Orange Book but as a newcomer its still all a bit confusing.

1. This happened very early on and I'm still not sure I have been given an adequate answer. Over ops open we play Michaels cue bid shows highest and lowest unbid suit, Unusual NT shows two lowest unbid suits and 3♣ shows highest and lowest unbid suit.

RHO opened 1♠ and I bid 3♣ showing 5/5 in clubs and hearts and 6-11 HCP. Partner alerted and then bid 3♦. I was just pondering what to do and had decided to bid 3♥ when RHO asked for an explanation. Partner incorrectly said I was showing diamonds and clubs. As hearts were my stronger suit I continued with my bid and we ended up making 4H.

I corrected partners explanation at the end of the bidding and our inexperienced opponents took it no further.

Q: Was I under any obligations once partner had made the incorrect explanation and I knew partners misunderstanding? I did ask a local TD the following week and he said it was opps tough luck for asking, but I'm not convinced.

Yes, you are under an obligation here, Law 16B and 73C are the relevant laws, I suggest you look them up in the Law book (note: not the orange book). The knowledge that your partner thinks you have spades and diamonds isn't authorised to you. To paraphrase, L73C says you mustn't take advantage of this. If you had decided before the explanation to bid 3H, then 3H can't be taking advantage. Law 16B, however, says (again, paraphrase), if there are several things you could plausibly do and the UI suggests that you do one of them, you must not do that - even if you were thinking of doing that anyway.

Without seeing the hands we cannot judge whether you had an alternative to bidding hearts so we cannot say whether or not you should have done so.

 SimonFa, on 2011-May-03, 05:50, said:

2. Last night I picked up this hand ♠]ATxxx, ♥QJ, ♦Kx,♣xxxx Vul against not. We open on a count of 19 but I wasn't going to open as the 4 club card suit didn't have any HCP, but I was ready to bid 1♠ over 1♣/♦/♥. RHO opened 2NT which was alerted. At our club this bid isn't normally alerted so I asked what it meant as I till had in mind that I might be able bid. It turned out to be 5-10HCP and both minors and forcing for 1 round.

I thought for a short while, maybe 20secs, and decided to pass and see what happened. LHO bid 3♣ and partner went straight in at 4♥. RHO "reserved his rights" because of the "unusual bidding pattern" to be sure partner did have a a 4H hand - he did and we made 11 tricks.

Q: In these situations do I have time to think and pass or am I obliged to bid if I ask for an explanation?

There are two issues here, the question and the tempo. The orange book says of asking questions "A player has the right to ask questions at his turn, but should be aware that exercising this right has consequences" and "If, therefore, at a player’s turn to call, he does not need to have a call explained, it may
be in his interests to defer all questions", although it does say that asking about alerted calls is less of a problem than of non-alerted calls. You are certainly not obliged to bid if you ask, but not doing so suggests to your partner that you have a hand which may have not passed if the answer to your question were different. He then has the obligations I described above.

As far as the tempo goes, after any skip bid you have 10 seconds to consider your call - that's what the stop card regulation is for. Generally this will be counted from after the response to the question, if you ask it immediately and providing that you always wait, even if you don't have to think. If you can keep your thinking to within those 10 seconds, then tempo won't transmit UI over skip bids. Where you have taken notably longer than 10 seconds again, this will suggest something about your hand to partner, that you don't have a hand which would pass immediately. Your partner again has the obligations above about not choosing a bid which was suggested by that UI unless that is his only reasonable option.

It sounds like in the second case your partner had a clear 4H call and so the question and the tempo weren't a problem, but trying to avoid transmitting the UI will make your partner's life easier. Remember that you should have been given a convention card with the meaning of 2NT on the front you could consult. If they've not done so, then your question will be given the benefit of the doubt more often than not.

[blackshoe]

Q1. Your partner's explanation is Unauthorized Information (UI) to you. You must carefully avoid taking any advantage of that information (Law 73C). In particular, if the UI suggests some action by you (including, in some cases, pass), and you have an alternative that is not suggested by the UI, you must take the alternative action even if you're sure that will lead to a bad board. As for the misexplanation itself, if you're declaring you call the TD after the final pass, before the opening lead is made (face down, remember); if you're defending you call the TD after the play is over. In either case you then explain that you believe your partner's explanation was incorrect, and give the correct explanation per your agreements. If you give an incorrect explanation (or alert) and later realize you've done so, you should call the TD and explain immediately.

Q2. You do have time to think, but only about 10 seconds. See the Stop Card regulation (which your opponents apparently failed to follow) in the Orange Book. BTW, "reserving rights" isn't any kind of accusation, so please don't take it as one. Actually, though, it's more "user friendly" imo (though not strictly by the book) to ask opps if they agree there has been a break in tempo (or some other action that might convey UI). If the opps disagree, they are supposed to call the TD. There should be no need, in theory, for the side which didn't break tempo to call the TD just to establish the facts. In practice, though, they often do find it necessary.

You can take longer to think, if you need it, but you need to remember that if you take too long (and more than 10 seconds over a skip bid breaks tempo) your partner will have UI which may constrain his actions.

[SimonFa]

Thanks for the responses.

So the answers are:

1. I don't see a way round having to pass now that I know partner's misunderstanding.

2. It looks like I have to start getting more decisive, or maybe just add forcing hesitations to our CC

[iviehoff]

 mjj29, on 2011-May-03, 07:00, said:

If you had decided before the explanation to bid 3H, then 3H can't be taking advantage.

A common misconception, but not true, not at all. You must choose from among logical alternatives something which is not suggested by the unauthorised information. It can sometimes happen that the bid you had decided to make before getting the UI is the bid that is the one (or one of those) suggested by the UI. You must now change your call to the one (or one of those) not suggested by the UI.

The TD was wrong, it is not bad luck for the opponents to ask and allow you to hear it. You must not just be deaf to your partner's explanation, you must bend over backwards to be seen to be deaf to it.

Btw, systems of three two-suited overcalls, such as you are playing, are notorious for creating opportunities for unlawful gain when there is a misunderstanding. What happens most often is that (1) you make the club overcall when you really have clubs, but the UI helps you to fall on your feet, and (2) you mix up which 2 suits are intended, but the UI helps you fall on your feet.

In the particular case where you apparently ended up in 4H, with your partner having explained your call as as D and C, I think we haven't heard the whole story. If you bid 3C and partner bids 3D, is that asking which suit is better? If so, you can bid 3H; you are being deaf to your partner's intention. If it means something else, like "I don't care about your suits, I've got lots of diamonds", you misbehaved. But the story doesn't end there. Somehow you got from 3H to 4H, and your partner didn't correct the explanation, nor correct the contract to a minor suit. As director, I would enquire how that happened, and whether you continued to behave as if your partner had correctly explained your bid, and indeed what motivated your partner's calls as the auction proceeded.

[mycroft]

Note: in the OP, both cue and 3♣ claim to be "top and bottom". I'm guessing from the rest of Q1 that cue="highest two unbid" and that 3♣ is Top and Bottom.

Law 73 says that you must "carefully avoid taking advantage" not just "take advantage". Sure, in this case, OP didn't know what 3♦ means over a "hearts and clubs" overcall (by the way, it shows something like 3=1=7=2 unless you have an agreement otherwise - "partner, I don't like your suits, mine is playable opposite your likely singleton"), and had already decided, but then came the UI. And the UI says "no matter what you thought 3♦ means, I don't have all that many diamonds" - and pulling this is only "carefully avoiding taking advantage" of it if you really don't know enough to be able to work it out. Maybe you'd get away with it before, but now, you're not going to. Oh, by the way, you also are not going to be able to get away with (1♠)-3♣ when you forget and bid it with 2=2=2=7, and partner Alerts.

Q2: as everyone else has said, yes, you do, but 20 seconds isn't a "short time" - 10 is what the regulations expect. Also, note that the thinkers almost inevitably undercount the time (because they're thinking and not counting) (note that thinker's opponents almost inevitably overcount the time; it's just natural). So your 20 seconds was probably closer to 30, and felt to the opponents like 60.

And yes, you gave UI, and the opponents (using jargon that you didn't understand - do feel free to ask them what they mean when they do that) did the right thing. Of course, so did your partner, so everything's good. But if his 4♥ call had been borderline (effectively, a 3♥ call that you would have raised, but he "pre-accepted" the invitation because he "knows" you don't have nothing), it would be investigated.

But that's why I don't like the formal language - newer opponents don't know what you're accusing them of (and "you" aren't - but it sure feels like it to them).

[SimonFa]

Thanks again.

Oops, cue bid is two highest unbid suits.

1. When I bid 3♥ partner raised to 4♥. Without the UI I was intending to bid 3♥first as they were my strongest suit and over anything else partner said, other than 4♥,I was going to bid 4♣to get the message across and hopefully wake him up. So even without UI we would have ended in 4♥.

We don't have agreements on what to do if partner has his own strong suit but we will by next Monday

As were a new pairing, only 3rd or 4th time together, and the system was new I took it as a mistake by partner anyway and not strong diamond hand.

Is it acceptable in these situations to ask partner to write his answer so there is no chance of UI? As I see it there is little I can do that doesn't look like I've taken advantage of UI.

2. I didn't take offence at Ops request to reserve his rights, indeed once he explained why, to our genuine question, it seemed very sensible. This team were the eventual winners and they are one of the leading pairs in the region so I understand their desire for correct etiquette and ethics and on my side I want to learn as quickly as possible.

[mycroft]

"get the message across" and "wake him up" are the things you explicitly can't do. Plus, it will be hard: your 3 heart call *should be*, to him, a cue bid for diamonds with a *big* overcall, and so should 4 clubs. You might find yourself in *6* diamonds.

You have to assume that partner knew what you meant and happily did something odd *anyway*. But I'm glad you're making agreements.

I don't play this convention (it starts with "G", and I don't play that other convention that starts with "G" either), because the two failure modes (this one, and "oops, I meant a natural 3C overcall") cost, much more than the benefit of knowing both suits does when it's right. You need to get a benefit from it at least 10 times for every time you get it wrong, basically - and that ignores all the times you break even. But it's not my duty to tell people what they should play, only what they can (and what happens when they get it wrong).

[bluejak]

 SimonFa, on 2011-May-03, 05:50, said:

1. This happened very early on and I'm still not sure I have been given an adequate answer. Over ops open we play Michaels cue bid shows highest and lowest unbid suit, Unusual NT shows two lowest unbid suits and 3♣ shows highest and lowest unbid suit.

That is not Michaels. Ghestem has many forms, where 2NT is unusual, and other bids, mainly the cue bid and 3♣ bids show the other two pairs. So I think you are playing a form of Michaels.

Have a look at Two suited overcalls on my Bridgepage.

[mjj29]

 iviehoff, on 2011-May-03, 10:11, said:

A common misconception, but not true, not at all. You must choose from among logical alternatives something which is not suggested by the unauthorised information. It can sometimes happen that the bid you had decided to make before getting the UI is the bid that is the one (or one of those) suggested by the UI. You must now change your call to the one (or one of those) not suggested by the UI.

I didn't say you are still free to bid it, just that I don't believe that you would be in breach of L73C if you do. Just L16B instead (I had hoped the rest of my post clarified this).

[barmar]

 mjj29, on 2011-May-04, 02:09, said:

I didn't say you are still free to bid it, just that I don't believe that you would be in breach of L73C if you do. Just L16B instead (I had hoped the rest of my post clarified this).

I think many of us consider 16B to be a clarification of 73C. 73C is vague and informal, 16B describes more precisely what you must do to follow it.