[hrothgar]

I was hoping that folks might help provide some input regarding the following hypothetical:

A local expert has agree to play with you in a tournament. You're playing his card. You have agreed to play 1430 RKCB and use DOPI (Doube Zero / Pass One) in competition.

Partner opens 1♠ and you hold:

♠ KQ72
♥ 9632
♦ KQ2
♣ 98

You decide to response 3♠ showing a limit raise with 4 pieces.
The auction proceeds as follows:

1♠ - (P) - 3♠ - (4♥)
4NT - (4♥) - ???

(The second insufficient 4♥ bid is not one of my oh too frequent typos)

Please explain your choice of calls (and how you expect partner to interprete this).

Furthermore, assume for the moment that you chose to accept the insufficient 4♥ bid and then "Pass". What are you showing?

[jdonn]

I would not accept the insufficient bid on this hand because there seems to be no chance at all of a misunderstanding over either pass or 5♥, nor is there any real chance of being too high in 5♠ since our entire hand is outside hearts. In contrast, anything we do over 4♥ risks partner not being on the same page (is double penalty or DOPI? etc.)

If partner acted over 4♥ I would assume it was still DOPI. That is definitely not theoretically best, but technically it's our agreement.

[ralph23]

A nice example of insufficiently articulated agreements!

Part of the problem is that D0P1 really isn't a very good name. Here's what I suspect happened (just a rational reconstruction, I don't recollect this): In ye olde days, before RKC was popular, the name and the method fit together fine. If you doubled, that was the "first step response" and showed zero Aces. If you passed, that was the "second step response" and showed one Ace. Etc. WIth regular Blackwood, all is fine.

Then the methods changed: RKC and even 1430 came along. So "the first step response" was no longer just "zero Aces." It was "0 or 3 keycards" or even "1 or 4 keycards." But the name D0P1 didn't change, because it was a cool name.

So now, we get to guess whether our expert partner is a

1. literalist (for him, "D0P1" means just what it says: With zero Aces (Keycards??) double; with one, pass; or

2. functionalist ("D0P1" is just a handy word to describe our methods in interference; it's not to be interpreted literally; we're still playing 1430, but the "first step response" -- showing 1 or 4 keys --- is just now double instead of 5♣, and the "second step response" --- showing 0 or 3 --- is now Pass instead of 5♦).

But even guessing this right doesn't solve our problem. Because partner must make the same guess, as to what we are thinking! I.e. even if he is a functionalist and we guess that correctly, is he clever enough to know that we figured out that he is a functionalist? Or is he just going to say "Oh my partner's surely a literalist so when he passes he has one (Ace? Keycard?)"

Maybe I'll just circumvent the problem and go ahead and bid 6.

Actually, I'll probably assume "Functionalism is more aesthetically pleasing and my partner's smart enough to know this and to know I know it, so I'll double to show the first step of one key card and then end up guessing later."

Note, that there's no advantage to playing "double" or "pass" as 1430 or 3014 here, as there is an advantage to playing 1430 over 3014 without interference. Double and pass are just arbitrary calls that take up zero room.

So there's really no advantage to either literalism or functionalism here. People will guess differently but imo it is just going to be a guess.

Another thought: Refuse the insufficient bid and maybe he will pass and the problem will go away! Probably not, as I think he meant to bid 5♥ all along, but maybe it's a shot.

This post has been edited by ralph23: 2007-October-22, 10:49

[hrothgar]

ralph23, on Oct 22 2007, 07:37 PM, said:

A nice example of insufficiently articulated agreements!

Part of the problem is that D0P1 really isn't a very good name. Here's what I suspect happened (just a rational reconstruction, I don't recollect this): In ye olde days, before RKC was popular, the name and the method fit together fine. If you doubled, that was the "first step response" and showed zero Aces. If you passed, that was the "second step response" and showed one Ace. Etc. WIth regular Blackwood, all is fine.

Then the methods changed: RKC and even 1430 came along. So "the first step response" was no longer just "zero Aces." It was "0 or 3 keycards" or even "1 or 4 keycards." But the name D0P1 didn't change, because it was a cool name.

So now, we get to guess whether our expert partner is a

1. literalist (for him, "D0P1" means just what it says: With zero Aces (Keycards??) double; with one, pass; or

2. functionalist ("D0P1" is just a handy word to describe our methods in interference; it's not to be interpreted literally; we're still playing 1430, but the "first step response" -- showing 1 or 4 keys --- is just now double instead of 5♣, and the "second step response" --- showing 0 or 3 --- is now Pass instead of 5♦).

But even guessing this right doesn't solve our problem. Because partner must make the same guess, as to what we are thinking! I.e. even if he is a functionalist and we guess that correctly, is he clever enough to know that we figured out that he is a functionalist? Or is he just going to say "Oh my partner's surely a literalist so when he passes he has one (Ace? Keycard?)"

Maybe I'll just circumvent the problem and go ahead and bid 6.

Actually, I'll probably assume "Functionalism is more aesthetically pleasing and my partner's smart enough to know this and to know I know it, so I'll double to show the first step of one key card and then end up guessing later."

Note, that there's no advantage to playing "double" or "pass" as 1430 or 3014 here, as there is an advantage to playing 1430 over 3014 without interference. Double and pass are just arbitrary calls that take up zero room.

So there's really no advantage to either literalism or functionalism here. People will guess differently but imo it is just going to be a guess.

Another thought: Refuse the insufficient bid and maybe he will pass and the problem will go away! Probably not, as I think he meant to bid 5♥ all along, but maybe it's a shot.

Thanks for the digression:

Any chance that you'd be willing to answer the actual questions?

[jdonn]

Wow, that will teach me to claim there is no chance of a misunderstanding if I let rho go back and bid 5♥ on my right. And to think we were told we have an agreement for that very situation.

[cherdano]

No right answer Richard. Playing with a mad scientist, of course DOPI applies over the accepted 4♥. With a run-of-the-mill expert, I would give my normal 5-level keycard answer. Playing with one of the gentlemen or ladies at my local bridge club, I would bid 4N to ask for keycards myself.

[FrancesHinden]

As jdonn has said, the safest thing to do is not to accept the insufficient bid. They are only in an 8-card fit, so if partner chooses to double after our pass = 1 then that's the right thing to do.

If I don't accept, and pass, there are two possible interpretations to what calls mean:

1. Double = 0, pass = 1, 4S upwards = what they would have meant a level higher had they bid 5H

2. Double= I want to defend 4Hx. Pass = I don't know what to do, but I like the thought that we might be able to stop at the 4-level. 4S = I have an unsuitable hand for both slam and defence, are you really sure you wanted to ask for aces and can we stop here instead? 4NT = whatever 5NT would have meant, 5C+ = my normal RKCB responses.

If I pass now, I would hope we would both go with 2. Partner might be uncertain what to do next, but he will probably be sufficiently confident that, whatever he thinks pass meant, double from him now = penalties, 4S= sign-off unless I have at least 2 key cards, 4NT = RKCB (again).

[ralph23]

jdonn, on Oct 22 2007, 12:59 PM, said:

Wow, that will teach me to claim there is no chance of a misunderstanding if I let rho go back and bid 5♥ on my right. And to think we were told we have an agreement for that very situation.

You do have an agreement, but its terms aren't clear. Do you think they are clear?

What would you bid over 5♥ if you held 3 keycards for instance??

[ralph23]

hrothgar, on Oct 22 2007, 12:53 PM, said:

Any chance that you'd be willing to answer the actual questions?

Naw, because you're obviously a literalist.....

[ralph23]

cherdano, on Oct 22 2007, 01:03 PM, said:

With a run-of-the-mill expert, I would give my normal 5-level keycard answer.

Now that should work and avoids the nastiness of what our calls mean over 5♥!!

[jdonn]

ralph23, on Oct 22 2007, 12:23 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 22 2007, 12:59 PM, said:

Wow, that will teach me to claim there is no chance of a misunderstanding if I let rho go back and bid 5♥ on my right. And to think we were told we have an agreement for that very situation.

You do have an agreement, but its terms aren't clear. Do you think they are clear?

Yes very.

Quote

What would you bid over 5♥ if you held 3 keycards for instance??

Sorry no free lessons this time, I have already contributed too much to this hijacking. You might try basic logic though, that if we are told we play a convention we are free to assume that use of this convention is not an automatic misunderstanding.

[ralph23]

jdonn, on Oct 22 2007, 01:33 PM, said:

ralph23, on Oct 22 2007, 12:23 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 22 2007, 12:59 PM, said:

Wow, that will teach me to claim there is no chance of a misunderstanding if I let rho go back and bid 5♥ on my right. And to think we were told we have an agreement for that very situation.

You do have an agreement, but its terms aren't clear. Do you think they are clear?

Yes very.

But it's a secret as to what they are.....

Are you playing Roman D0P1 or just plain D0P1? Your card says "D0P1" -- do you imply "Roman" in front of that, because you're playing RKC? Or do you just take "D0P1" literally?

I guess you think it's so clear that even a question as to what the calls mean is an insult. So be it. It's not so clear.

[andy_h]

jdonn, on Oct 22 2007, 11:26 AM, said:

I would not accept the insufficient bid on this hand because there seems to be no chance at all of a misunderstanding over either pass or 5♥, nor is there any real chance of being too high in 5♠ since our entire hand is outside hearts. In contrast, anything we do over 4♥ risks partner not being on the same page (is double penalty or DOPI? etc.)

If partner acted over 4♥ I would assume it was still DOPI. That is definitely not theoretically best, but technically it's our agreement.

Agree. Accepting the 4H bid will just create more confusion. I guess the post-mortem would be like "I would've thought you would take this as __ as it's our likely or close to our agreement."
You're just asking for trouble in an unfamiliar territory.

[mikegill]

No one is up for accepting the 4♥ bid and then bidding keycard yourself to steal control of the auction from partner? I thought 4N was always keycard. Maybe then LHO will try to bid 4♥ over my 4N and we can start an infinite loop.

[andy_h]

mikegill, on Oct 22 2007, 04:50 PM, said:

No one is up for accepting the 4♥ bid and then bidding keycard yourself to steal control of the auction from partner? I thought 4N was always keycard. Maybe then LHO will try to bid 4♥ over my 4N and we can start an infinite loop.

Ah good idea. Then we can have a marathon of DOPIs to either keep asking partner about keycards and confirming/reconfirming it, or ask partner about his whole hand presuming he knows we are asking about kings, then queens, the jacks..etc. tyo

[Mbodell]

Is it legal in this situation to have specific partnership agreements about what it means to accept the insufficient bid and then make a bid versus not accepting the insufficient bid? I've been told before that you can't have partnership agreements about what accepting the bid versus not accepting the bid means, and it seems like this auction is a prime one for that given some of the suggestions.

I play 1430 and DOPI over sufficient bids where double == 1 or 4 and pass == 3 or 0.

I'd assume accepting the 4♥ bid and passing or doubling was as above so for me if I heard accept, double I'd think 1 key card.

[blackshoe]

The current laws are mute on this point, but SO regulations may prohibit it, and some do. The ACBL and the EBU are two, iirc.

I believe it's expressly prohibited under the new laws (which go into effect next year), but I may be misremembering.

[whereagles]

My hand is pretty good given the auction. I'll accept 4♥ and bid my keycards, e.g. 5♦ (1-4 keys), avoiding all mudiness

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on Oct 23 2007, 08:39 AM, said:

The current laws are mute on this point, but SO regulations may prohibit it, and some do. The ACBL and the EBU are two, iirc.

I believe it's expressly prohibited under the new laws (which go into effect next year), but I may be misremembering.

For what its worth, I've always felt that banning partnership agreements over the opponent's insufficient bids was one of the stupidest parts of the regulatory structure.

The main reason that I posted my example was to try to test one of my theories. I assumed that the majority of players would ascribe to Arend's "Mad Scientist" School. I figured that (without any discussion) people would assume that if you accepted the insufficient bid, the original agreement (DOPI) would apply to followup bids. I am somewhat surprised that this isn't the case. (My suspicion is that if I possed this as a question involving a relay sequence there would be much more uniform agreement).

Let's assume the following:

1. There are lots of MAD Scientists out there.
2. Said Mad Scientists are all playing DOPI or DEPO or whatever

How does the regulary system deal with these sorts of implict agreements? In theory, you could side-step the entire issue by baring Mad Scientists from ever accepting an insufficient bid, but this doesn't seem entirely satisfactory...

[FrancesHinden]

hrothgar, on Oct 23 2007, 02:13 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Oct 23 2007, 08:39 AM, said:

The current laws are mute on this point, but SO regulations may prohibit it, and some do. The ACBL and the EBU are two, iirc.

I believe it's expressly prohibited under the new laws (which go into effect next year), but I may be misremembering.

For what its worth, I've always felt that banning partnership agreements over the opponent's insufficient bids was one of the stupidest parts of the regulatory structure.

IIRC (and in spite of my new official position, I am only going on vague memory here), the EBU have un-prohibited it mainly on the grounds that there was no reason to ban it in the first place.

Quote

I figured that (without any discussion) people would assume that if you accepted the insufficient bid, the original agreement (DOPI) would apply to followup bids.  I am somewhat surprised that this isn't the case. 

I tried this out on my husband last night (who had seen your post in another forum, but hadn't replied). His without-discussion response turned out to be in line with the philosophy behind my answer, namely:

1. If you want to avoid accidents, you accept the insufficient bid
2. Therefore, if you don't accept it the bid, it's because you specifically wanted to take advantage of it and hence double is penalties, 4S is strictly to play, and pass suggests we are short of keycards and may want to defend.