[uday]

In the original example, tho, OP said

(3) Alerted; explained as forcing with a one-suited hand

In acbl-land, he doesn't get to explain until asked. So in ACBL-land, what actually happens is:

(3) Alerted

and no one knows why the bid was alerted.

For all fourth hand knows, it means "P, I guarantee that we will make 1NXX even if you have psyched" and this might be relevant no matter what he has.

4th hand is in an awkward position regardless of whether he asks or not. Even if he makes a practice of always asking, there is no reason to assume that *these* opponents know that this is his practice, and they may be misled by his asking into assuming he has an interest in the response.

The Bridge World has been discussing related issues lately.

I personally take a dim view of people basing actions on opps Qs when they play the very methods that force the opps to ask Qs in order to protect themselves, but whatever

[Halo]

The argument that you give UI by not asking seems false. It's like saying you give UI by passing.

[gnasher]

Echognome, on Apr 14 2008, 08:42 PM, said:

Like I said, if you asked every time there was an alert, there would be no worry about the information. But that doesn't happen does it?

Yes, of course it happens. I routinely ask about any alerted bid, at least on on the first two or three rounds of the auction. I do this partly to protect my partner from receiving unauthorised information, partly to avoid giving the opponents information, and partly because I like to know what's going on.

Regardless of my hand, it wouldn't occur to me to call over this redouble without first finding out what it means.

[gnasher]

Halo, on Apr 14 2008, 11:20 PM, said:

The argument that you give UI by not asking seems false. It's like saying you give UI by passing.

This would be true if you never ask the meaning of the redouble and then pass.

If, on the other hand, you sometimes ask the meaning and then pass, but sometimes pass without asking, and this variation is dependent on the contents of your hand, then the act of asking or not asking conveys UI.

[gnasher]

Echognome, on Apr 14 2008, 10:07 PM, said:

Orange Book said:

Players sometimes say “I always ask whether I intend to bid or not”. This is not
recommended.

Fortunately this is merely a recommendation, and does not carry the force of law or regulation. It can therefore safely be ignored.

[jtfanclub]

Halo, on Apr 14 2008, 05:20 PM, said:

The argument that you give UI by not asking seems false. It's like saying you give UI by passing.

Why is that false? If I only fail to ask when I have a clear pass, then I am giving UI when I fail to ask.

Passing is AUTHORIZED information. Knowing that partner has a weak hand from a pass is legal. Knowing that partner has a weak hand from his failure to ask a question, and using that knowledge, is not.

I will always ask in a competitive auction, and I always ask prior to my second call in the auction.

[Cascade]

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Maybe. Partner's questions might suggest bidding over pass but the non-standard pass could shift the logical alternatives.

[kenrexford]

I always hesitate 10 seconds after every jump.

I always hesitate five seconds in any situation where I might frequently decide to take action.

I always (try to) play cards in tempo.

I always ask whenever there is a likelihood that the answer might impact a decision on my part with some likely hand that I might have, whether I have that hand or not.

I often have directors called by idiots who have no ability to notice that THIS five-second "tank" was the fifteenth 5-second "tank" of the set.

Sometimes, you cannot win. But, you can always try to be ethical.

[Echognome]

gnasher, on Apr 14 2008, 02:56 PM, said:

Echognome, on Apr 14 2008, 08:42 PM, said:

Like I said, if you asked every time there was an alert, there would be no worry about the information. But that doesn't happen does it?

Yes, of course it happens. I routinely ask about any alerted bid, at least on on the first two or three rounds of the auction. I do this partly to protect my partner from receiving unauthorised information, partly to avoid giving the opponents information, and partly because I like to know what's going on.

Regardless of my hand, it wouldn't occur to me to call over this redouble without first finding out what it means.

Don't get me wrong. I am sure this isn't a problem at some levels of bridge. I have no doubt you are extremely ethical when it comes to asking questions.

Quote

Quote

Players sometimes say “I always ask whether I intend to bid or not”. This is not
recommended.



Fortunately this is merely a recommendation, and does not carry the force of law or regulation. It can therefore safely be ignored.

But the fact is that this isn't the case for many players and thus creates a problem. Do you not believe that is true? Or are you just saying that it isn't true for you?

[Free]

(1) Is it ethical for the fourth player (Passer) in this auction to ask about the meaning of redouble if his hand is not such that he would ever consider bidding in this auction?
Yes. If you wouldn't do this, you'll give UI by not asking! If you only ask when there's a chance you'd bid, you give partner the information that you would never bid with your current hand. He isn't entitled to know this. So it's probably best to just ask every time in this case.

(2) Is it ethical for the first player (1NT opener) to decide to pass the redouble after describing it as forcing on the basis that the fourth's player's questions about the redouble implied a hand that was considering running?
Yes, but it's at his own risk...

(3) Suppose opener describes the redouble as forcing and then passes. Is it ethical for the second player (Doubler) to run from 1NTXX despite having the unauthorized information that partner asked about the meaning of redouble? Does the fact that redouble was described as forcing and then passed effect this?
What UI do you have from the question asked from your partner?? With a strong hand, partner may pass to wait and see, with a weak hand he may pass because it's forcing. So the question followed by the pass doesn't suggest a certain hand type.
As for the fact that redouble was explained as forcing and then was passed: if there is any UI involved, opponents can make use of this. His partner however can not!
So yes, (imo) the second player may run from 1NTxx.

[Poky]

awm, on Apr 14 2008, 06:22 PM, said:

(1) Is it ethical for the fourth player (Passer) in this auction to ask about the meaning of redouble if his hand is not such that he would ever consider bidding in this auction?
(2) Is it ethical for the first player (1NT opener) to decide to pass the redouble after describing it as forcing on the basis that the fourth's player's questions about the redouble implied a hand that was considering running?
(3) Suppose opener describes the redouble as forcing and then passes. Is it ethical for the second player (Doubler) to run from 1NTXX despite having the unauthorized information that partner asked about the meaning of redouble? Does the fact that redouble was described as forcing and then passed effect this?

(1) Yes. Asking for the meaning of an alerted bid can very hardly be unethical.

(2) Yes. It is ethical and mostly, very stupid.

(3) Yes. It is ethical and mostly, very stupid. Partner suggestet desire to play 1NTxx, so, why run? Asking for the meaning of XX doesn't constitute an UI! If the asker hesitated, then we have a different story.

[Free]

Poky, on Apr 15 2008, 08:21 AM, said:

Partner suggestet desire to play 1NTxx

Why?

[Cascade]

Free, on Apr 15 2008, 07:22 PM, said:

Poky, on Apr 15 2008, 08:21 AM, said:

Partner suggestet desire to play 1NTxx

Why?

I agree with the question ...

Passing a forcing bid (call) hardly suggests a desire to play in the last denomination.

[gnasher]

Echognome, on Apr 15 2008, 07:29 AM, said:

But the fact is that this isn't the case for many players and thus creates a problem. Do you not believe that is true? Or are you just saying that it isn't true for you?

I'm saying that it isn't true for me, and for others who act as I do. You said "if you asked every time there was an alert, there would be no worry about the information. But that doesn't happen does it?" Since I do it, it does happen.

If you're asking whether I agree that many players ask questions selectively, depending on the contents of their hand, then yes, I do, and I agree that doing so creates UI. However, the EBU's approach to this problem is an awful one, because the regulations actually discourage both the best solution (always asking regardless of whether you need to know) and the next best (sometimes asking even when you don't need to know).

The ACBL seems to have a different problem: players still ask questions selectively, but many directors apparently believe that this doesn't convey significant unauthorised information.

[Halo]

jtfanclub, on Apr 14 2008, 06:05 PM, said:

Halo, on Apr 14 2008, 05:20 PM, said:

The argument that you give UI by not asking seems false. It's like saying you give UI by passing.

Why is that false? If I only fail to ask when I have a clear pass, then I am giving UI when I fail to ask.

Passing is AUTHORIZED information. Knowing that partner has a weak hand from a pass is legal. Knowing that partner has a weak hand from his failure to ask a question, and using that knowledge, is not.

I will always ask in a competitive auction, and I always ask prior to my second call in the auction.

I just think this is more difficult than is suggested here.

1. There is no basis for telling a player he must ask questions when he has no intention of bidding.

2. There is no way unless you have supernatural knowledge to know that someone passed because of lack of values, rather than because he already knew what the bid meant.

3. 'Always asking' may seem like the whole answer, but I have never played against anyone who manages to do that.

Anyway, it is clearly legal to ask questions - and even giving UI is not illegal typically. This is all just a practical difficulty because there isn't usually time to study the opponents system in detail. And I don't believe there is a perfect and practical way out.

[gnasher]

It's perfectly legal to ask questions when you need to know and not when you don't, and the fact that this approach conveys UI doesn't make it any less legal.

What it does do, however, is to constrain your partner's actions. This will sometimes cost IMPs or matchpoints by forcing him to do something different from what he would have done without the UI.

I think that the time and energy used in always asking about alerted bids is justified by the reduction in the UI conveyed to partner. Others may prefer to do without this distraction and accept the occasional loss resulting from transmitting UI. What you can't do is to adopt a policy of asking questions selectively and then expect to avoid the consequences.

[han]

awm, on Apr 14 2008, 12:22 PM, said:

(1) Is it ethical for the fourth player (Passer) in this auction to ask about the meaning of redouble if his hand is not such that he would ever consider bidding in this auction?

Seems to me that this is an auction where you would very often ask.

Quote

(2) Is it ethical for the first player (1NT opener) to decide to pass the redouble after describing it as forcing on the basis that the fourth's player's questions about the redouble implied a hand that was considering running?

I have trouble seeing how this could be unethical. Unwise maybe, but not unethical.

Quote

(3) Suppose opener describes the redouble as forcing and then passes. Is it ethical for the second player (Doubler) to run from 1NTXX despite having the unauthorized information that partner asked about the meaning of redouble? Does the fact that redouble was described as forcing and then passed effect this?

It is unethical to run because partner asked, obviously. There are hands where one might bid instead of pass (for instance with a major single suiter too strong to bid it immediately) with most hands it would be quite strange so I would be tempted to call this cheating.

An exception would of course be if the pass conveys special information, then a pull might be advisable.

[han]

In a situation where you would need to ask on a large majority of the hands, not asking conveys information. In such a situation it seems better to always ask.

[Free]

Han you're not making much sense here: in a case like this (where you'll frequently ask about the X), not asking conveys information, but if you ask, partner can't run because you asked So whatever you do, you're screwed?

[han]

I realize that. I don't think that the question conveys much information.

However, it seems to me that it is very unusual for the doubler to pull. So when partner has tanked or with his question has made it clear that he has a problem then pulling would suggest use of the UI.