blackshoe, on 2014-March-20, 09:33, said:
Why do we assume that this pair bids 2m on this hand by agreement? The only evidence we have is that responder did bid 2m. That is not sufficient evidence to rule they have an agreement. As for ethics, it should require a lot more evidence than this to question a player's ethics.
I, for one, didn't question their ethics as a result of this action nor do I see anyone else doing so. The OP explanation of the raise was 'inverted forcing one round', iirc.
If, and this is a big if, the raise was consistent with their agreed methods, then their disclosure, for north American players, was at the least somewhat casual, and incomplete and ought to be known by them to be misleading, since in NA, inverted usually starts at 10+ hcp. That isn't the same as accusing them of being unethical. We all have lapses from time to time and I'd hate to be judged on my lapses rather than my normal actions.
By contrast if E simply chose to make a non-systemic call, that happened to work well, then more power to him. I would, if I harboured any concerns, make a mental note, merely because I have encountered pairs who routinely distort their actions, such that their partner knows and plays for it, and those people I despise. I would never assume that any pair did that, but I am no longer so naïve that I won't be alive to the possibility.
If their announcement was merely F1, then in a casual game or online I wouldn't have an issue...I think that I would, especially online where partner can't know I asked, ask about what that meant, and it is an interesting question as to whether they ought to volunteer this unusual approach without being asked...personally, I like to think I would. But I have long since learned that just because I would act in a certain way doesn't give me the right to criticize others who prefer to act differently.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari