[spuit111]

Scoring: MP

---

EW play weak NT.

Auction

W       N        E      S
[1N]    P       [P]    2C*
[P]**  2H     [P]    2S***
[P]      ??****

* 2C = both majors. Alerted by N.

** West asked about 2C. Described as above.

*** 2S - a bidding mishap, or is S showing a strong hand with better S than H. Forcing.

**** Partner didn't show much reaction to description of 2C bid, but N is pretty confident at this point that South has had a bidding mishap. [She usually plays 2C = single suited major, and 2D for both majors].


What is North's responsibility?

Questions

1 - May North pass 2S?

2 - If North passes is she "fielding"?

3 - What would a director rule if 2S is passed?

4 - Even if ok for North to pass is it ethical for North to bid 3H as if pard has shown a strong hand with both majors?


The Consequence

North (me) decided ethical to bid 3H. South bid 3S. I decided at this point it seemed reasonable to pass. Bidding error exposed and evident to all.

3S-2 for bottom score.

Partner not happy. Said I should just pass 2S.

I thought ethically that I shouldn't but don't really know..... Hence the post. I'd like to know what I should do next time. [No doubt there will be a next time sometime!]


I'm interested to hear your answers to my questions.

[Free]

I think it depends a lot on South's level of play. A normal agreement for 2♠ would be extra's and longer ♠, but if South would never make such a bid it's pretty obvious that 2♣ was not both Majors.

Anyway there's nothing wrong with bidding 3♥, as you have a poor hand and no game interest opposite both Majors.

South shouldn't blame anyone except himself: if he didn't forget the system, you wouldn't be in that situation. Next time he'll have a good hand with both Majors, you'll pass and he'll play his 5-1 ♠ fit at 2-level with possible game in ♥. No, he made a big mistake, all he should say is "sorry".

[kgr]

Does North have UI information? I don't think so. So he can pass 2♠
South has UI but passing 2♥ does not seem like an option

[helene_t]

Yeah, if the only reason why North thinks it's a mishap is that S would never have bid 2♠ holding both majors, then there is no UI and North can do what he wants.

I would just trust partner and bid 4♥.

[TylerE]

Yea...that's what I don't get here... if partner has a good both major hand, i have more or less the nuts, and should be bidding 4. Rates to be x-ruff city.

[pooltuna]

helene_t, on Jul 17 2010, 09:36 AM, said:

Yeah, if the only reason why North thinks it's a mishap is that S would never have bid 2♠ holding both majors, then there is no UI and North can do what he wants.

I would just trust partner and bid 4♥.

more like punish partner since there was no X of 1NT and no 2NT "cue bid"

[hanp]

A good partner is showing a good hand with the majors, longer spades. South could be 6-5 or something, you definitely don't have to double with all good hands, especially if you can show your suits with a forcing bid.

I think there is often UI in such a situation.

[jjbrr]

S showed a great hand with both majors. Passing 2♠ is nuts unless there's UI!

[jdonn]

Even if there weren't UI, if north is basing his pass on prior experience of his partner forgetting then he certainly did not give adequate disclosure.

[JLOGIC]

What if he's basing it on partner being unable to perpetrate such a sophisticated auction with a good 6-4 hand, as most people are not?

If there was actually no table action then you can do what you want. The problem is usually in these kind of situations when people "figure it out" it's because they've played together for a while and sense something and that is table action.

[hanp]

Of course that would be a fine reason. But many people who are not able to perpre.. bid like this, also are unable not to give UI.

[gnasher]

JLOGIC, on Jul 17 2010, 10:46 PM, said:

If there was actually no table action then you can do what you want.

Except in England.

(Strictly speaking, in England you are allowed to do what you want, but they will adjust your score anyway.)

[jdonn]

hanp, on Jul 17 2010, 04:48 PM, said:

Of course that would be a fine reason. But many people who are not able to perpre.. bid like this, also are unable not to give UI.

I think they are quite good at giving UI just not always the best at interpreting it. But sometimes it goes the other way too.

Btw spuit I admire your effort to be ethical here when many wouldn't have. But you might have asked yourself if you would be worth 4♥ over a 2♠ bid that is really still a good hand with the majors, and if you honestly think you are then that's what you should do.

[JLOGIC]

gnasher, on Jul 17 2010, 06:30 PM, said:

JLOGIC, on Jul 17 2010, 10:46 PM, said:

If there was actually no table action then you can do what you want.

Except in England.

(Strictly speaking, in England you are allowed to do what you want, but they will adjust your score anyway.)

I think this is the right solution, otherwise you will just get a bunch of he said/she said about the table action, or worse the opps will not even realize there was table action because it can be subtle and maybe the partners have played long enough to know something is up, but the opps do not know their exact mannerisms well enough to know this.

It seems like just saying that if you "somehow" figure out that your partner forgot your agreement on this hand and make an "inspired" pass, there was table action, is a better way to do it, and less subjective.

[JLOGIC]

jdonn, on Jul 17 2010, 08:24 PM, said:

Btw spuit I admire your effort to be ethical here when many wouldn't have. But you might have asked yourself if you would be worth 4♥ over a 2♠ bid that is really still a good hand with the majors, and if you honestly think you are then that's what you should do.

No, you should ask yourself if 4H is a logical alternative to 3H since it is a UI case. If you think there's no UI then see england, or just pass.

4H is definitely a logical alternative to 3H imo.

[JLOGIC]

Also,

Am I alone in thinking that the 3S bid is completely unethical/absurd, and taking advantage of UI.

Say you showed a 1 suiter, and partner bid 2H (I don't care what your 1 suit is, I have hearts). You were like, nah I have spades pard! And he bid 3H! You're really correcting this with 1 heart and 6 weakish spades?

The only reason I won't say it's just outright cheating is because partner did pass 1N, so he can't have great hearts. So what is his hand? A pretty weak hand with a spade void and 7 bad hearts makes sense to me, you can't come in over a weak NT with a terrible hand since partner will play you for values and might bid 3N or something else, so you just have to pass.

I think it is a pretty sad reflection of how ethical bridge players are if we are congratulating OP for bidding 3H "ethically" and saying nothing about responder bidding 3S so that they managed amazingly to stop in 3S despite this bidding misunderstanding.

That being said, I do think 90 % of bridge players would pass 2S if they knew what was going on and try to win the ruling, so OP is in fact was more ethical than at least 90 % of the people.

[jdonn]

what was that post lol? both your responses to me in this thread seem designed to create a disagreement with me out of nothing. dont be like that just because im going to own you in the bidding challenge.

[JLOGIC]

jdonn, on Jul 17 2010, 08:32 PM, said:

what was that post lol? both your responses to me in this thread seem designed to create a disagreement with me out of nothing.

Huh? I don't know what you're talking about but you seem to think every post I make is designed to "disagree" with you or something. Honestly I don't really care that much about what you post, and do not design my posts in ways just to disagree with you.

I don't even know what the 2nd post is that you think is designed to disagree with you so I'll address the one i do know:

You said:

Quote

But you might have asked yourself if you would be worth 4♥ over a 2♠ bid that is really still a good hand with the majors, and if you honestly think you are then that's what you should do.

I said:

Quote

No, you should ask yourself if 4H is a logical alternative to 3H since it is a UI case.

I pointed out a distinction.

You said he should ask himself whether he honestly think he's worth a 4H bid.

I said he should ask himself whether 4H is a logical alternative to 3H.

IMO it is a big flaw that people ask themselves in these cases "Am I worth..." or "Would I have bid..."

I know that you know the difference and you worded it carelessly. Other less experienced players than you do not know the difference, and consistently think of it the way you worded it.

The point of the forum is to discuss these things. OP was clearly trying to be ethical, but failed to do so IMO. I thought he would benefit from what I said in order to know what to do next time something similar happens. Sorry if you get butthurt about stuff like this, or think I am targetting you.

[kgr]

jdonn, on Jul 17 2010, 11:19 PM, said:

Even if there weren't UI, if north is basing his pass on prior experience of his partner forgetting then he certainly did not give adequate disclosure.

Agree, but is there any punishment for that; Are opps harmed by that?

[gnasher]

JLOGIC, on Jul 18 2010, 02:25 AM, said:

I think this is the right solution, otherwise you will just get a bunch of he said/she said about the table action, or worse the opps will not even realize there was table action because it can be subtle and maybe the partners have played long enough to know something is up, but the opps do not know their exact mannerisms well enough to know this.

It seems like just saying that if you "somehow" figure out that your partner forgot your agreement on this hand and make an "inspired" pass, there was table action, is a better way to do it, and less subjective.

What they actually do is assume that to be able to work out that partner has misbid, you must have previous experience of partner's forgetting. This means that you have an implicit agreement that you haven't properly disclosed, and they penalise you for that.

The legal justification is a bit dubious, but I can understand why they do it.