[SimonFa]

I don't know if this is the correct place for this question, please move to B/I if it isn't.

EDIT: Changed sloppy wording to describe 4♥ bid

Partner opened:

2♦* (3S) P (4H)
All pass

*Announced as weak.

3S wasn't alerted and something just didn't seem right. I had a reasonably good hand which was 4/4 in the majors, but opposite the weak 2D didn't have any future. Partner is quite indisciplined on first chair opening and I would normally take her to be at the bottom end of our points range (5-11) for this bid.

When the 3S bid was made I assumed that it was pre-emptive in nature and knowing LHO to be cautious was surprised when she bid 4♥, especially as I had 2 honours.

Before dummy went down I asked about the nature of the 3S bid and was told by declarer it was strong. However when it went down it was definitely pre-emptive.

So, instead of playing partner for about 5 points I now played her for more and and constructed my defence around that knowledge. I don't know if that change definitely led to us beating the contract as it was a poor contract, but we may have got an extra trick out of it.

Was my question and change of behaviour legal and ethical?


Thanks in advance,

Simon

[gordontd]

SimonFa, on 2011-September-29, 02:09, said:

When the 3S bid was made I assumed that it was pre-emptive in nature

It's usual to play that jump bids over pre-emptive openings are strong.

SimonFa, on 2011-September-29, 02:09, said:

and knowing LHO to be cautious was surprised when she jumped to 4♥,

4♥ is not a jump.

SimonFa, on 2011-September-29, 02:09, said:

Was my question and change of behaviour legal and ethical?

You are entitled to know your opponents' system agreements (even if they don't), and to construct your defence around them and the evidence of the dummy.

[SimonFa]

gordontd, on 2011-September-29, 02:30, said:

It's usual to play that jump bids over pre-emptive openings are strong.


4♥ is not a jump.


You are entitled to know your opponents' system agreements (even if they don't), and to construct your defence around them and the evidence of the dummy.

Sorry sloppy wording - 3♠ was a jump, 4♥ a bid

[iviehoff]

SimonFa, on 2011-September-29, 02:09, said:

Before dummy went down I asked about the nature of the 3S bid and was told by declarer it was strong. However when it went down it was definitely pre-emptive.

To be clear, if you are on lead, you ask questions at the end of the auction before you lead. If you are the partner of the opening leader, you wait for your partner to put his lead face down on the table, ask the questions, and then the lead is faced (but once made face down, it can't be changed though, unless some previous misinformation is subsequently identified). If you or your partner is not in the habit of leading face down, and I understand it is uncommon in some parts of the world, it's a good idea to get into the habit of it, whatever you see people around you doing, as it is in fact compulsory to do this, and it is useful for the partner of the opening leader to have the opportunity to ask questions.

If dummy knew declarer's explanation was wrong, dummy should have corrected it, immediately, before the lead was faced. If dummy, on hearing declarer's explanation, decides that in fact the explanation is right, and that he misbid, then he was correct to keep his mouth shut.

Once you saw that dummy's hand did not accord to the explanation, you are entitled to conclude that dummy must have misbid, and that declarer has a hand consistent with the explanation you were given. You were therefore quite right to play on the assumption you played on. In fact, if it transpired that declarer had misled you, you would have been entitled to ask the Director to review whether you had been given misinformation, and obtain compensation for that.

[mrdct]

Good question and right place for it.

I agree with everything iviehoff said.

[bluejak]

gordontd, on 2011-September-29, 02:30, said:

It's usual to play that jump bids over pre-emptive openings are strong.

Amongst better players, no doubt.

But the vast majority of players will bid 3♠ over a weak 2♦ opening with a seven card suit whether strong, weak or intermediate.



As a matter of nomenclature, if you bid 3♠ after RHO opens 2♦ is that "over" or "after" 2♦? If you bid 3♠ after partner opens 2♦ and RHO passes is that "over" or "after" 2♦?

[RMB1]

bluejak, on 2011-September-29, 09:40, said:

As a matter of nomenclature, if you bid 3♠ after RHO opens 2♦ is that "over" or "after" 2♦? If you bid 3♠ after partner opens 2♦ and RHO passes is that "over" or "after" 2♦?

I try to use "over" for action by the next player in rotation, who makes "overcalls". This leaves "after" for other continuations.

[lamford]

wrong thread - sorry.

[Vampyr]

iviehoff, on 2011-September-29, 03:03, said:

If you are the partner of the opening leader, you wait for your partner to put his lead face down on the table, ask the questions, and then the lead is faced (but once made face down, it can't be changed though, unless some previous misinformation is subsequently identified). ... it's a good idea to get into the habit of it, whatever you see people around you doing, as it is in fact compulsory to do this, and it is useful for the partner of the opening leader to have the opportunity to ask questions.

Of course, if it is unlikely that you will receive any information that will change partner's lead, it is not necessary to ask your questions before partner faces his lead. I often ask questions after partner has led and dummy is being put down, to save time.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2011-September-29, 18:54, said:

Of course, if it is unlikely that you will receive any information that will change partner's lead, it is not necessary to ask your questions before partner faces his lead. I often ask questions after partner has led and dummy is being put down, to save time.

However, it is sometimes important for me to ask about dummy's bidding BEFORE I see the dummy. I want information unbiased by seeing the actual dummy, to determine whether he was expecting his pard to have something different when he made his decisions.

[SimonFa]

Thanks for the answers, good to know no crime was committed.

To answer a question above, yes we always lead face down. Which leads to another questions.....

Quote

I often ask questions after partner has led and dummy is being put down, to save time.

If you get an explanation that entitles partner to change his lead or even change the last bid what then?

[iviehoff]

SimonFa, on 2011-September-30, 01:55, said:

If you get an explanation that entitles partner to change his lead or even change the last bid what then?

We should remember that opening leader's partner retains the right to a full restatement and explanation of the auction until they play to the first trick (41B), so asking once dummy has been exposed is not irregularly late. But once dummy has exposed even a single card there is no longer any possibility of the opening lead being changed under any circumstances, so the question you ask does not really arise. L47E2a: "An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has faced any card." But when it is too late to change a play, there is still the possibility of an adjusted score (L47E2b).

[pran]

SimonFa, on 2011-September-30, 01:55, said:

Thanks for the answers, good to know no crime was committed.

To answer a question above, yes we always lead face down. Which leads to another questions.....

If you get an explanation that entitles partner to change his lead or even change the last bid what then?

Then defenders have forfeited any right to rectification for damage that could have been avoided had misinformation by declaring side been revealed with question(s) before (instead of after) the opening lead is faced.

Simple as that.

[gordontd]

deleted

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2011-September-29, 22:40, said:

However, it is sometimes important for me to ask about dummy's bidding BEFORE I see the dummy. I want information unbiased by seeing the actual dummy, to determine whether he was expecting his pard to have something different when he made his decisions.

Yes, I thought about saying something to this effect as well, but was too lazy.

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2011-September-30, 02:28, said:

Then defenders have forfeited any right to rectification for damage that could have been avoided had misinformation by declaring side been revealed with question(s) before (instead of after) the opening lead is faced.

It forfeits the right to change the lead, not to getting an adjusted score. The only law I am aware of that refers to forfeiting the entire right to rectification (other than those that refer to forfeiting the right for other specific offences) is Law 11A. But Law 11A is not applicable in this case, because it applies only if the NOS is aware of the irregularity, and the NOS have no duty immediately to notice or to attempt to discover the other side's irregularities.

The defenders are entitled to think that any information that they are given is correct. It may be that they then ask questions that reveal it to be incorrect, but that does not mean that they should have thought of asking them sooner. Moreover if the MI was capable of identification by the defenders asking questions before the opening lead is faced, that implies the declaring side must have committed the offence of failing to correct the MI before the opening lead is faced.

The correct time-limit is the end of the Correction Period (L92B).