|
|
|
|
|
|
Bridge Brief Broadcast Archive
|
Back to Bridge Brief Archive Index
November 11, 2000
Active Ethics
The Scorecard is the publication for ACBL District 16. I was asked and consented to write
a regular column aimed at the 0-299 masterpoint player. I will post my columns here as
they may be of benefit to the same readers that benefit from my newsletter.
Scorecard, Volume 32, No 6 - November/December 2000
As you mature and gain experience you are expected to be more and more aware of the laws
of the game. An understanding of the laws can place an emotional strain on your ethics as
well. You should work consciously to improve your understanding and application of ethics
and the law. Most ethical violations are unintentional. I would guess that most players
have been unethical at some point during their bridge career. If the thought, Not me! just
ran through your mind then please read on before coming to a conclusion. You might be a
bigger offender than you realize. The ACBL has spent thousands of dollars in marketing a
campaign to promote Active Ethics. Just what do they mean by that? A basic understanding
of the law will help. Let me present a scenario to see how you might act.
You pick up:
as dealer and open 2
. Partner alerts and when LHO (left hand opponent) asks,
explains that your bid is Flannery 2 showing 5 hearts, 4 spades, and 11 to 15
points.
Case 1
Your actual agreement is that you play a 2 opening as a weak two bid.
Has there been an infraction of the law and what should you do?
Law 75 (C) states that the opponents are entitled to an accurate description of your
partnership agreements. Here there was an infraction of law, as partner did not convey to
the opponents an accurate description of your agreement (you agreed to play weak 2 and
partner indicated Flannery 2). Law 75 (D) states that you must correct a mistaken
explanation by partner. However, you cannot provide partner with any unauthorized
information. You cannot correct the explanation until the auction is over (if you become
declarer or dummy) or at the end of the play (if you become defender). Law 75 (D) also
states that you are not entitled to the unauthorized information provided by partners
description (in our case the fact that partner thinks you have a Flannery 2 hand).
At the appropriate time (before the opening lead or after the play is complete) you should
summon the director and inform the opponents that partner provided an
incorrect explanation.
Follow up - Partner bids 2NT after LHO passes. Your agreement is that 2NT asks for a
feature. What should you bid?
Since you are not entitled to the unauthorized information that partner is on a totally
different page you must continue as though the conversation between partner and LHO had
not occurred. You must rebid 3 to show no outside feature. Any bids by you must be made
with the same type of mindset.
Over a weak two diamonds you would expect partner to have a self-sufficient heart or
spade suit. You should pass (yes I know that partner expects you to hold 5 hearts and 4
spades).
| You |
Partner |
| 2 |
2NT |
| 3 |
4NT |
This is Blackwood. Tell partner how many aces you hold. Will all this yield a poor
result for your side? Yes, probably. If the misinformation from partner causes damage to
the opponents, then the director may award an adjusted score. You should accept the ruling
without argument. Remember that your side created the problem.
Case 2
Your actual agreement is that you play Flannery 2 which you simply forgot. Has there
been an infraction of the law and what should you do?
Law 75 (C) states that the opponents are entitled to an accurate description of your
partnership agreements. Here there was NO infraction of law as partner did convey to the
opponents an accurate description of your agreement (you agreed to play Flannery 2 as
partner indicated). The fact that you do not hold what you and partner agreed is not
germane. However the same rules apply about unauthorized information. You must remove from
your thinking the wake-up call that you heard when partner alerted and explained your bid.
The alert and explanation were for the opponents not for you. That is
information to which you are not entitled and you may not act on it. You should continue
the bidding firmly rooted in the belief that you and partner are playing 2 as a
weak two bid. That is clearly what you thought prior to the alert and you have no facts
(other than the unauthorized information) upon which to alter your opinion.
Follow up - Partner bids 2NT after LHO passes. Your agreement is that 2NT over 2 Flannery
asks for your shortest minor suit. Your agreement is that over weak two bids (2
and 2
) that 2NT
asks for a feature.
What should you bid?
You must bid 3 to show no feature. Once again follow up bids must be made
from your understanding not taking into account the information that you received from the
alert or subsequent explanation.
In either case to pass 2NT, to bid 3NT, to jump to 5 or any other rescue bid (clearly
based both on your desire to save the result and on the unauthorized
information) is inappropriate and unethical. The director should award an adjusted score
(which might include a penalty for your side) if you act in such a manner. This is the
price you pay in order to play a bidding system full of conventions. The best way to keep
on track is to remember that the alert procedure (an imperfect process at best) is for the
benefit of the opponents and not for your side to issue reminders to one another. You must
act without any information imparted from alerts or descriptions.
Let me close by commenting on the things from the other perspective. If your RHO opens 2 (which
is alerted) and you do not intend to bid irrespective of the meaning, then PASS and ask
for a description after the auction is over. This greatly simplifies and in many cases
eliminates the problem.
Be actively ethical and always take the moral high ground. The game is better for it. Let
me hear from you.
Thanks!
Gary King
�2000 The Bridge Companion. All rights reserved.
743