From: rainbow@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Rob Buchner)
Subject: Re: Ethics question
Organization: St Barts
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:54:51 GMT
Keywords: no agreement = procedural penalty


>Expert opponents N/S, expert partner W:
>Auction is :
>	N	E	S	W
>	pass	1H	pass	2H
>	pass	pass	DBL	pass
>	2S	DBL	pass	pass
>	pass

>North now asks West "Is the double for penalty?". My partner West
>says "You are not entitled to ask that question.". At this point
>the discussion gets very heated with North saying that my partner
>is an imbecile and that she has been on many committees and that 
>she is absolutely entitled to the information. etc...

>My partner replies that she is entitled to our
>agreements and tendencies and to an explanation
>of our auction. He is willing to explain our auction but
>will not answer the specific question. Presumably he can work
>out whether I have a penalty double or a takeout double by
>looking at his hand. Is he right?

>This particular partner and I do not play that often and have no
>particular agreements on low level doubles. If I decide to double
>for takeout are we in trouble if my partner says my double is for
>penalty?

Everyone knows that North is asking for an explanation of the auction,
and while her wording may not be correct, there is no reason for
West to act like an a**hole lawyer and be a major pain in the neck.
I have little sympathy for West who clearly provoked the argument.
Yes North should be cautioned for losing their temper and also
reminded to call for the director to settle disputes at the table.
But North's technical infraction is much less severe than West's,
West is obligated to provide an honest answer to the intended question.
And it is unacceptable for West to claim no agreement and say I don't 
know. Actually, he can say it, but it is not considered satisfactory.

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.
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.