[jeffford76]

Partner forgets a convention and bids a game forcing 2♦ (that you alert and the opponents ask about) in the unopposed auction 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♠. They then pass your 2NT rebid, so it's clear that their earlier bid was a misbid to everyone at the table before the opening lead is made.

When dummy comes down, you realize that it is likely that if the director is called the score will be adjusted to 3NT down one more trick than the amount 2NT is down given the unauthorized information from your alert. Would you call the director?

(This isn't in one of the laws forums, because I think it is clear that you have no legal obligation to call.)

[CSGibson]

Its hard to say without knowing more. Do you mean that partner took advantage of UI? Does this mean that you aren't playing transfer XYZ in this partnership (if the answer is no, then do whatever you can to burn the partnership anyway, maybe meaning that you always or never call the director, depending on the mindset of your partner)? If I know the opponents are inexperienced, I might call - I have before - but if I'm playing a real event, or an event with teammates, then I'm not going to call the director over myself without some comment from the opponents indicating that they think they might have been damaged.

[Vampyr]

jeffford76, on 2013-October-10, 16:19, said:

Partner forgets a convention and bids a game forcing 2♦ (that you alert and the opponents ask about) in the unopposed auction 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♠. They then pass your 2NT rebid, so it's clear that their earlier bid was a misbid to everyone at the table before the opening lead is made.

When dummy comes down, you realize that it is likely that if the director is called the score will be adjusted to 3NT down one more trick than the amount 2NT is down given the unauthorized information from your alert. Would you call the director?

(This isn't in one of the laws forums, because I think it is clear that you have no legal obligation to call.)

I have no problem with letting the opponents call the director, if they so choose. If they are novices, though, and don't realise that they may have been damaged, or how, I think that it is probably right to call the director. I wouldn't condemn anyone who didn't.

EDIT: Crossed post above; much of what I wrote now seems redundant.

[jeffford76]

CSGibson, on 2013-October-10, 16:52, said:

Its hard to say without knowing more. Do you mean that partner took advantage of UI? Does this mean that you aren't playing transfer XYZ in this partnership (if the answer is no, then do whatever you can to burn the partnership anyway, maybe meaning that you always or never call the director, depending on the mindset of your partner)?

The partnership was playing regular XYZ. It was a first time partnership, and I wouldn't presume to know what partner was thinking about. It could be that they were trying to get out, using the UI, and it could be that they didn't think 3NT was a logical alternative. (When I polled the hand later unpolluted there were people passing and people bidding so bidding was clearly a LA, but people don't always judge that correctly when they think they would have passed and so would everyone else.)

[blackshoe]

You cannot know what partner was thinking when he passed a presumably forcing 2NT, any more than you can know what he has in his hand. So you cannot know that he has infracted Law 16.

If you have explained that 2♦ was forcing to game, then even novices ought to be able to figure out that something is not right when partner passes 2NT.

"Active ethics" is important. So is partnership harmony.

[akwoo]

I would make sure the opponents knew their rights to call the director, but would not call the director myself. And I would try to do this before dummy was actually faced.

[EricK]

What sort of hands bid 2NT on the auction partner, without the alert, would have thought you were having? What sort of hands would bid 2NT on the auction you thought you were having? It might be that the latter group includes both stronger and weaker hands than the former. In which case it's hard to say which of bidding on or passing is taking advantage of the alert.

[gnasher]

I'd assume that the opponents can look after themselves. Partner judged that his pass was legal; perhaps the opponents agree with him.

[glen]

how do you vote that partner should call the TD?

[paulg]

gnasher, on 2013-October-11, 03:24, said:

I'd assume that the opponents can look after themselves. Partner judged that his pass was legal; perhaps the opponents agree with him.

I would too except if the opponents were clearly inexperienced. Even in a major event I would, and have, advised inexperienced opponents that this is the sort of occurrence that is worth calling the director about.

[barmar]

EricK, on 2013-October-11, 02:23, said:

What sort of hands bid 2NT on the auction partner, without the alert, would have thought you were having?

In a "standard" auction, 2NT should be a hand with the strength to jump to 2NT (inviting game) on the previous round, but the wrong shape, e.g. 4=3=1=5. Unless you're a novice, then it's that shape with any strength.

So if partner passed with anything more than a dead minimum for his 1♦ response, the opponents have probably been damaged.

[wyman]

barmar, on 2013-October-11, 09:17, said:

if partner passed with anything more than a dead minimum for his 1♦ response, the opponents have probably been damaged.

[redacted rubbish]

[mycroft]

If my partner passes 2NT, and doesn't clearly have a 3♦ pull or a 3NT raise, in the auction he likely thought he had - "I have 6 diamonds and a minimum response, partner" - then he probably didn't do anything wrong and I see no reason to call the TD. ♦AQTxxx and out flat, or another random jack, for instance.

If it's borderline, and I don't think the opponents know enough to know there's a problem, I'll call. If you're playing in Flight A, or in the NAP Flight B, or we're playing last round for first place in a 0-1000 field, you know enough :-).

But usually they grumble about "you said it was game forcing!" and other things, in which case, attention has been drawn to (what isn't technically, but that didn't stop a problem in August) an irregularity, and the TD will be called to head off any argument that starts (which would be anything after "yes, I did. He chose to pass. I guess he thought 2♦ was natural.") I do that not to help or hurt my side, but only because when I am called to a table like this, the ruling is the same, but the atmosphere during and after the call is a lot better if I'm called before everyone gets wound up.

[barmar]

wyman, on 2013-October-11, 09:27, said:

Perhaps partner has a hand that is borderline between accepting and rejecting. Knowing that 2N is forcing from the alert, she may have realized that she was in possession of UI and done the ethical thing by passing instead of bidding on.

I don't understand this. She knows from the UI that opener may have a minimum, rather than the extra values that she would presumably expect without it. Passing limits the damage, so it's not ethical.

Do you mean a hand that's borderline between bidding 2♦ and 3♦ on the previous round? Either of those should accept the game invitation -- then the question becomes whether she made use of the UI in not exploring for slam.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-10, 21:01, said:

You cannot know what partner was thinking when he passed a presumably forcing 2NT, any more than you can know what he has in his hand. So you cannot know that he has infracted Law 16.

Law 16 doesn't require you to know what's in partner's mind; it's worded in terms of choosing among logical alternatives, and what is demonstrably suggested by the UI. Are you thinking of 73C?

[EricK]

barmar, on 2013-October-11, 10:10, said:

I don't understand this. She knows from the UI that opener may have a minimum, rather than the extra values that she would presumably expect without it. Passing limits the damage, so it's not ethical.

But she also knows from the UI that partner might have an excellent hand - one that would have jumped to game over a natural 2♦ rebid. If opener had such a hand, and responder bid on with a marginal acceptance of an invite, then they could be accused of taking advantage of the UI that partner thought his bid was forcing.

[CSGibson]

EricK, on 2013-October-11, 11:02, said:

But she also knows from the UI that partner might have an excellent hand - one that would have jumped to game over a natural 2♦ rebid. If opener had such a hand, and responder bid on with a marginal acceptance of an invite, then they could be accused of taking advantage of the UI that partner thought his bid was forcing.

except that hands with 12-14 points are 5 times more likely than hands with 17-18 points, and approximately 3 times more likely than hands with 16-18 points, so passing is clearly suggested over bidding on if it comes to a choice between the two. (numbers taken from RPbridge.net's hcp probablility calculator, does not take distribution into account for this hand)

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-October-11, 10:13, said:

Law 16 doesn't require you to know what's in partner's mind; it's worded in terms of choosing among logical alternatives, and what is demonstrably suggested by the UI. Are you thinking of 73C?

No. You cannot know, at the table, what your partner's LAs are, because in order to know that you have to know his hand. You know what his bidding has shown, but that's not the same thing. You cannot know his hand until you can see it, so you cannot know his LAs. Since you cannot know his LAs, you cannot know whether he has chosen one in violation of Law 16. You can guess, with varying degrees of accuracy, but you cannot know.

[jeffford76]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-10, 21:01, said:

You cannot know what partner was thinking when he passed a presumably forcing 2NT, any more than you can know what he has in his hand. So you cannot know that he has infracted Law 16.

I think you can know once dummy hits the table.

[wyman]

barmar, on 2013-October-11, 10:10, said:

I don't understand this. She knows from the UI that opener may have a minimum, rather than the extra values that she would presumably expect without it. Passing limits the damage, so it's not ethical.

Do you mean a hand that's borderline between bidding 2♦ and 3♦ on the previous round? Either of those should accept the game invitation -- then the question becomes whether she made use of the UI in not exploring for slam.

Sorry -- what I posted above was rubbish. Shouldn't post before coffee I've edited it out.

edit: but to save face, I was considering a situation where 2D is inv+, forcing [yes, I'm aware that's not what 2D is in this auction], and 2N is min. If partner's borderline between raising and not raising to 3N, he should pass if he knows that you, having bid 2N in a 2D=GF auction, are split btwn 11-14 & 18-19.