From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan)
Subject: Re: Ethics question
Organization: Irvine Compiler Corp., Irvine, California, USA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:18:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.225451.24791@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> rainbow@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Rob Buchner) writes:

>   To clarify further, in the midwest, for an expert player to claim
>   ignorance of an auction is an automatic procedural penalty. Unless
>   you've NEVER played together before, it is expected for a partnership
>   to know what are all their agreements and tendencies, and to be
>   able to clearly and concisely explain them to their opponents.
>   To say that you haven't discussed an auction is pure poppycock.
>   You will receive a procedural penalty, period. If you must,
>   you can qualify your statement (preferably without your partner
>   hearing your explanation) saying that you aren't sure, but I 
>   think it should mean so and so and that is how I'm taking it.
>   And yes, if you are wrong, the opponents may still be protected,
>   although you may have succeeded somewhat in mitigating the damage.
>   Playing together ONCE qualifies you as an established partnership.
>   And you will then be held responsible for ALL bidding sequences.

There are 128,745,650,347,030,683,120,231,926,111,609,371,363,122,697,557
possible bidding sequences.  So this means that after playing 26
boards, you and your partner are responsible for all 1.29 * 10**50?

>   And that means a procedural penalty when you say you have no
>   specific understanding. Any expert player will suspect or even
>   know what a bid means, and is obligated to convey that info.
>   And most certainly the expert will have a strong opinion on it.
>   To suddenly try and say you have no clue is almost laughable.
>   To say you have no agreement is not an answer, it is a cop-out.
>   If you are playing together as a partnership, you will receive
>   a procedural penalty for any auction that you cannot explain.
>   The onus is on the partnership to know what they are doing.
>   And if you don't know, a procedural penalty is now automatic.
>   Skill level is not a factor here since anyone playing in a 
>   tournament is assumed to have reasonable partnership knowledge.
>   Opponents are entitled to know what is going on in an auction.
>
>   If you really took a guess, or answering the question reveals
>   your hand, etc, then you accept your procedural penalty for not
>   knowing or not having an agreement and proceed to finish the hand.
>   Maybe harsh, but that is what directors have been instructed to do.
>   Anyone not having an agreement will receive a procedural penalty.
>   Then the directors will assess whether there was any further damage.
>   In other words it is very possible to receive negative MPs on a board.
>   The rules committees are striving to protect opponents from these
>   random happenings, whether they be intentional or unintentional.
>   And if you provide an explanation which turns out to be inaccurate,
>   it is also an automatic procedural penalty unless you can prove 
>   your explanation is indeed your partnership agreement, which is 
>   hard to do unless you have something written down somewhere.
>   Even if you bid your hand out according to your understandings,
>   while the opponents may not get an adjustment, you get a penalty.
>   This information comes straight from a national director.
>   Consider yourselves forewarned. For a partnership, not having
>   an agreement is not sufficient to avoid any responsibility.
>   Partnerships are now held responsible for having agreements.
>   Not having an agreement will result in a procedural penalty.

I really disagree here, and even if the directors in the Midwest have
been instructed to assess a procedural penalty, I think it's wrong.  

The proprieties specifically state, "[a player] need not disclose
inferences drawn from his general bridge knowledge and experience."
Suppose you and your partner are both experienced, above-average
players, but you've only played together once before.  Now you're in a
tournament, in which your partner agreed to play with you at the last
minute because your other partner had an emergency business trip.
Your LHO opens 1H, and partner bids 3H.  Now RHO asks you what it
means.  Well, this auction didn't come up in your first session
together (it's a pretty rare bid), and you didn't get around to
discussing anything remotely close to this (really, can you imagine
how many hours it would take to discuss every conceivable situation?).
So are you required to tell RHO anything?

Well, most experienced, above-average players would have an idea of
what this bid means, but the reason we know this is from our bridge
knowledge and experience, which we are NOT required to disclose, even
if we suspect partner has read the same books we have.  Put another
way, we are in the exact same position as RHO in that both of us must
deduce the meaning of the bid from general knowledge.  You are
responsible for making things equal by telling RHO about your
partnership's agreements.  But in this case, you and RHO are already
in equal positions (RHO may not have read the same books you have, but
there's no responsibility for you to bridge *that* inequality).

Personally, in this case, I'd most likely just answer the question,
but I strongly believe I am not required to by the Laws.  

(If any relevant laws have changed since 1982, when my Laws book was
printed, please let me know.  Thank you.)

                                -- Adam
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge