[bid_em_up]

zasanya, on Feb 20 2007, 10:02 AM, said:

Do you think East has a case? Do you think N/S can be accused of unethical behaviour making use of UI?

In a word, No.

N/S can be accused of not knowing what they are doing, and thats about it. I really wouldn't sweat "ethical" issues of this nature against an "old man" with whom I had good relations prior to this, as you later state. You are also playing chicago, which sounds as if you are playing against a pair of friends (or aquaintances) in a social game (maybe even a home game). For all we know, this pair has been playing like this for years in social games where things such as this are the norm.

While their behaviour could certainly be described as coffeehousing, or simply "lack of experience", to accuse someone of being unethical as a result of this in what appears to be a friendly game is taking things a little bit too far, imo.

They ended in a bad game, you misdefended, it made. Tough cookies. It's chicago, they will be likely to stretch for a vul game of any kind. 4S is cold on the lie of the cards though, they could have easily been in it instead (losing 1S, 1C, 1D or 2S and 1D).

You might explain to them that taking advantage of (mis)explanations is considered to be unethical and why. But by no means should you accuse them of actually being unethical....at least not until they do it a second time after having the reasons why it is considered to be unethical explained to them.

[cherdano]

I didn't follow this thread much because I thought the issue was 100% clear-cut. Of course North was misusing UI. Please don't tell me that there are no logical alternatives to bidding 4♥, opposite a hand that passes 2♣, Landy.

I am really surprised that one poster who is both an occasional director and a decent player can come to a different conclusion here. Apparently he missed that even if partner's explanation is correct, it has to be treated as UI if you obviously forgot this agreement.

Arend

[han]

Obvious UI abuse.