Should I tell?

My regular partner is away for a couple of months so I'm playing with a few "occasional" partners. One such partner opens 2D (Benji strong) which I alert. Partner reaction tells me that something's up. I remember that I have agreed to play three weak 2s with at least one occasional partner and think it might be this one.

I explained the situation to opponents (Law 40F4a). I diligently bid as if it was a strong bid whilst "knowing" that it was weak.

It quickly became clear that partner's bid was not weak and that in fact I didn't play 3 weak twos with this partner, and the 2D was as originally described.

The opposition later complained they had been mislead because partner had not formally corrected the "weak" explanation, despite it being clear from the bidding that it's not weak.

Do they have a case?


  • I think I would need to know the full bidding sequence and exactly what was said at each stage before answering this.


  • In an ideal world, the director would be called: to rule on the various UI aspects and to ensure the opponents could here what partner thought the agreement was. If you were the playing director, I think you should have told partner to tell the opponents what he thought the agreement was while you went for a short walk.

    When you explain partner's bid with some uncertainty and partner was not aware of any uncertainty when he made the bid, partner should correct the explanation to a more certain explantion when the laws allow.

Sign In or Register to comment.