Join Bridge Winners
Ethical Question

I would like to survey this esteemed panel.   A group of local players had a very heated discussion after last night's game and I'd like to solicit additional opinions.

 

E-W is a first time partnership of reasonably experienced players.

The auction has been: P-P-P-1-P-1-P-2NT-P-3-*X-4-P-P-P

*After waiting for an alert, South asked about the meaning of the 3 call, and was told by West that they had not discussed any meanings by a passed hand.

 

Before opening lead, S asked E, now declarer about their agreement, and he answered generally that they did have no agreement on this particular auction and didn't feel she was entitled to any additional information.

 

East:  

♠ J10973♥ A1098♦ K♣ 943

 

West

♠ AKQ♥ Q75♦ AQ54♣ J107

 

South

♠ 86♥ 3♦ J8763♣ AQ865

 

NS were very upset at the end of the hand, thinking East and West were clearly on the same page as playing it NMF, and East was intentionally deceitful in not disclosing his intentions.

East thought that since they DID have no specific agreement, South was probing for information to which they weren't entitled.

E/W DID play NMF if not a passed hand.

Additional thoughts encouraged.

Since E/W did have no agreement, they were under no obligation as to the guess of how partner would take their bids. S asked reasonable questions.
E/W did not do anything unethical, but it would have been nice if East went out of his way to disclose his intent on the bid.
E/W should have disclosed their interpretations and intent. Their failure to do so was inappropriate.
Since E/W did have no agreement, they were under no obligation as to the guess of how partner would take their bids. S was inappropriate in probing further.

Sorry, to answer polls. Registered users can vote in polls, and can also browse other users' public votes! and participate in the discussion.

Getting results...
loading...
96 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top