Join Bridge Winners
Upgrading, disclosure and ethics under the laws of bridge as promulgated by the ACBL (2017)

This posting arises from a prior post where one player held Axx, Axx, AQTxx, Ax and chose to open 2N. The partnership convention card stated that their opening 2N range is 19-20.  The partners are experts and their agreement is that they may exercise their judgment to upgrade or downgrade any hand.  They do so on occasion but not frequently.

It has been suggested that the card was improperly filled out and that failure to provide written disclosure that a hand may be upgraded was "unethical at best." Cited as authority was ACBL Law 40. One post stated to the effect that the "Work point count" is inviolate.

I think I need some help here. When I read the ACBL Laws (I used a search engine) I see no reference to the "Work point count", "point count" or "high card points." What I do see in Law 40 are the following:

40.B. allowing the "Regulating Authority" to designate certain partnership understandings as "special." A special understanding may be disallowed. A special understanding is one which may not be readily understood or anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament.

40.C. allowing a player to deviate from the side's announced understandings (presumably a convention card is an "announcement" although I find no authority for that presumption) provided that his partner has no more reason than the opponents to be aware of the deviation.

From this I conclude:

1. There is no requirement to use the Work point count, or any other tool, in evaluating a hand. The Work point count is not a 'rule' that a Regulating Authority has the power to legislate (unless it is in the context of a special agreement.) Any regulation to that effect would be invalid and unenforceable under the ACBL Laws.

2. Valuation of a hand is an integral part of the game. Many factors, including but not limited to the Work point count, are regularly considered. Because it is a fundamental element of the game, valuation of a hand is readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players and all players should be aware of this possible deviation. 

3. The convention card as an announcement is a short hand way of describing a partnership agreement with respect to a bid. It cannot identify and describe all aspects of the partnerships agreements (e.g., may have a five card major, may have a singleton honor, will not be 5M and 4m, may have a six card minor, AND MAY BE UPGRADED OR DOWNGRADED.) Each of these partnership agreements are equally subject to the laws with respect to the partnership's disclosure. If you believe that upgrading must be written on the convention card, then you must equally believe that every other aspect of a partnership's explicit or implicit agreements must be similarly listed.

To the contrary, I believe that a convention card which states the 2N range is 18-22 is misleading if the partnership is occasionally upgrading or downgrading a hand described as 19-20. By the same logic, such a card fails to disclose that it is not all 18's or 22's that are opened 2N. I believe that this interpretation is consistent with the ability of an opponent to ask that a bid be clarified. See Law 20.F. allowing any player to request an explanation of an action, including "any inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding." It is at this point that an opponent can ask about a partnership's tendencies to upgrade.

I took offense at the suggestion that my 19-20 marking of my convention card was unethical and that I was similarly instructing junior players under my tutelage to engage in unethical behavior.  But I have been wrong before. So, where have I erred?

Getting Comments... loading...

Bottom Home Top