[aguahombre]

jdonn, on May 17 2009, 11:59 AM, said:

aguahombre, on May 17 2009, 11:36 AM, said:

So Hanp, we are fixed.  If either of us asks about the double, we are causing ethical problems or cheating. And, if neither of us asks we are causing ethical problems or cheating AND possibly headed for disaster.

If you ask about the double purely because you hope partner will draw an inference about you asking or not asking, THAT is cheating. If you ask about the double because you need to know what it means, that is bridge.

I understand. But responder can look at his/her hand and know what the double means. So he/she probably does not need to ask. If he does ask, the implication is, therefore, that he is clearing up for partner that he knows. And this is improper.

The notrump bidder, then must ask, so he can have the same information as his partner already had. That seems the only way to be ethically correct, but is tough for both players to have to get right, in reasonable tempo.

[kenrexford]

Simple question, to illustrate my point.

LHO opens 2♦, alerted. Partner bids 2♠ without asking any questions. 2♠ over Flannery or Weak Twos or Mini-Roman is always natural in your system.

However, when you ask for a definition of the call, RHO explains that 2♦ shows an intermediate hand with 5+ spades and 4+ diamonds.

Don't you have to treat partner's 2♠ as Michaels, which would be your default in sequences like this? Won't you feel obligated to blast 4♥ with a hand where blasting 4♥ seems obvious opposite Michaels but insane in this sequence?

So, who made the ethical blunder?

My position would be that the 2♠ call was not strictly unethical, but it creates an ethical problem without resolution, and that this person should have asked for the meaning of 2♦ before bidding.

Surely, however, asking for the eaning of the 2♦ bid cannot be construed as unethical just because you want partner to know what your bids mean, as you always want partner to know what your bids mean as an intended collateral benefit of knowing yourself what your bids mean. Asking while seeing the definition on the CC, however, is a problem, probably. In that situation, I bid per the card and then trust partner to act ethically. Partner may be frightened, but my partners treat my call as what it should mean after a definition opf the opponents' bid is provided.

[kenrexford]

aguahombre, on May 17 2009, 12:26 PM, said:

But responder can look at his/her hand and know what the double means. So he/she probably does not need to ask. If he does ask, the implication is, therefore, that he is clearing up for partner that he knows. And this is improper.

I think this is dead wrong. Here's why, using your logic.

If you always ask, partner can take no inference.

If you sometimes ask, partner will be able to infer that:

1. If you ask, then you have a hand pattern that makes deciphering the meaning of this unknown call difficult.
2. If you don't ask, then you have a hand pattern that makes deciphering the meaning of this unknown call easy.

In the actual situation, think of the real inferences -- not asking suggests that Responder has a stiff or void in hearts, as he actually has, or long hearts (maybe 5♥/4♠?). Asking implies 2-4 hearts and uncertainty.

[jdonn]

Ken

- For all you know partner looked at their convention card, or has played this pair before.
- Partner should ask before acting over an alerted bid if he has no idea what it means.
- You committed the ethical blunder of basing your action on whether partner has asked what the bid means.
- Your key misstatement is "Surely, however, asking for the eaning of the 2♦ bid cannot be construed as unethical just because you want partner to know what your bids mean, as you always want partner to know what your bids mean as an intended collateral benefit of knowing yourself what your bids mean." You don't ask so partner will know what your bid means, you ask so YOU will know what your bid means.

[jdonn]

aguahombre, on May 17 2009, 12:26 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 17 2009, 11:59 AM, said:

aguahombre, on May 17 2009, 11:36 AM, said:

So Hanp, we are fixed.  If either of us asks about the double, we are causing ethical problems or cheating. And, if neither of us asks we are causing ethical problems or cheating AND possibly headed for disaster.

If you ask about the double purely because you hope partner will draw an inference about you asking or not asking, THAT is cheating. If you ask about the double because you need to know what it means, that is bridge.

I understand. But responder can look at his/her hand and know what the double means. So he/she probably does not need to ask. If he does ask, the implication is, therefore, that he is clearing up for partner that he knows. And this is improper.

The notrump bidder, then must ask, so he can have the same information as his partner already had. That seems the only way to be ethically correct, but is tough for both players to have to get right, in reasonable tempo.

I think every statement in your post was incorrect, except perhaps "I understand".

[Phil]

Ken, might it be possible that the auction is ending at 3♥? It's not forcing by any means. It's not at all like:

1♠ - pass - 2♣ - pass
3♣ - pass - 3♠ - ?

Where 3♠ is forcing and we have a serious surprise in the trump suit and can beat any four level contract (and 3N), but we might as well pass and collect our extra 200 or 300.

Ergo, you can't take any inference about the nature of the double of 3♥ other than it being penalty.

Quote

I would have guessed that the double showed 4♠/6minor, or something like that. I think that makes way more sense than penalty.

Effective immediately, I propose a new sub-group of threads. Below "Advanced and Expert bridge", we'll put:

"Rexford Bridge"

[hanp]

It is very simple.

If you ask what the double is because you want to know for your bid then that is perfectly legal of course.

If you ask to let partner know that you have asked, that is cheating.

Of course with screens you can ask about the double without partner noticing.

[aguahombre]

Ken, you are absolutely right. To always ask provides no inference to partner. ---except for one thing. there has been no alert. And do you always ask the meaning of non-alerted calls? If so, great --never a problem. I cannot imagine anyone who always asks. It is more likely that partner, not asking, regardless of what he holds, cannot picture his rho doubling here with hearts --just to remind himself that he has them.

Therefore 4H would be longer hearts, weaker hand. Redouble would be content with hearts but willing to double them, and pass would be all other hands that would like to punish them. This leaves new suit bids to have the same meaning they would have had without the silly double.

[kenrexford]

Hanp: That's what I said. We agree.

Phil: The question is not whether 3♥ is forcing. The question is whether, in the long run, you would rather double for penalty or double for takeout. My thought is that a double for takeout seems wildly more likely, because you rarely have an auction die at 3♥ when you have a heart stack. Why? Well, if you are looking at KJ10xx in hearts, and Opener has four hearts, then Responder probably doesn't have four hearts. Ergo, he probably just bid 3♣ because he has 5+ HCP abnd four spades. So, you'll double, he'll laugh and bid 3NT, and your hand will now be on the table for Declarer.

Josh: I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I repeatedly said that you do not ask what a bid means to draw partner's attention to something you already know. However, the point of bidding is communication. Whenever you ask what an opponents' bid means, for the purpose of knowing what your bids means, you want to know what your bid means to partner, not to yourself. If you look at bidding at somehow a set of opposrtunities to put a proper card on the table according to some set of rules, then you are right. If you look at bidding as communication, then you by definition need to know how partner will interpret your bid. Hence you do need to know what the opponents' bids mean so that partner will know what you are showing. If you think about it, we are saying the same thing.

[kenrexford]

aguahombre, on May 17 2009, 12:58 PM, said:

Ken, you are absolutely right. To always ask provides no inference to partner. ---except for one thing. there has been no alert. And do you always ask the meaning of non-alerted calls? If so, great --never a problem. I cannot imagine anyone who always asks.

Not always, but perhaps more than others, purely for ethical reasons. I also find it sometimes necessary to ask in sequences where I have no bid, to avoid sending the message that I have no bid regardless.

[Winstonm]

This hand has already passed the chance to act once before and there is no implied heart fit for opener and responder, so I don't see why we should assume a takeout double.

I would think this double to be more in the "informational" category, indicating a very strong heart holding - not strictly penalty but willing to play 3H doubled but anticipating no redouble.

I would think a hand such as xxx, AQJ9x, xxx, xx would make the informative double of 3H to help the defense against a subsequent 3N or 4H contract.

[Phil]

kenrexford, on May 17 2009, 01:01 PM, said:

Phil: The question is not whether 3♥ is forcing. The question is whether, in the long run, you would rather double for penalty or double for takeout. My thought is that a double for takeout seems wildly more likely, because you rarely have an auction die at 3♥ when you have a heart stack. Why? Well, if you are looking at KJ10xx in hearts, and Opener has four hearts, then Responder probably doesn't have four hearts. Ergo, he probably just bid 3♣ because he has 5+ HCP abnd four spades. So, you'll double, he'll laugh and bid 3NT, and your hand will now be on the table for Declarer.

No, the question of whether or not 3♥ is forcing has everything to do with whether or not our double is penalty or takeout.

Earlier you say, "3♥ will be rarely passed". I would suggest that if we are looking at a hand that wants to take a piece out of 3♥, something like:

Kx
AQT9x
Axx
Axx

that responder is, in fact, about to pass 3♥ and you'll collect 100, 200, 300 instead of 2/5/8.

Now, if you instead hold:

xx
KJTxx
AKx
xxx

where you'd sort of like to double 3♥, you shouldn't, since they are more likely to bid game if you pass, and if you double they might slither into 3N. But this has nothing to do with whether or not your double is better used as takeout, but has everything to do with tactics in the situation at hand.

Really, what kind of hand would you want to double as takeout on? You suggested a 4♠ / 6m. Some of these hands with good playing strength could come in directly over 2N.

"Takeout" makes even less sense. Why would we suddenly wade in at the 3/4 level when LHO is unlimited? Most of the time when we hold a 4=0=(54) (funny symmetry to the OP's hand btw), pard is looking at a ?=5=?=? yarborough and will just throw up when you double.

[kenrexford]

I think this is getting diverted from the issue. The question of importance for Responder is not whether takeout or penalty makes the most sense, the question is whether takeout or penalty is what the opponent means.

[gnasher]

Strange discussion.

If, in the given jurisdiction, a failure to alert makes it clear what that double means, both members of the partnership should already know what it means. If the failure to alert doesn't make the meaning clear, responder will, obviously, ask before deciding what to do. If one of our side doesn't know what the non-alert implies, he asks the meaning of the double; the only information thereby conveyed to his partner is that he doesn't know the alerting rules.

If the failure to alert implies that it was for penalties, but it later turns out that it was systemically something else, the director either rewinds the auction or adjusts the score (depending on when the misinformation is discovered).

Nobody has to make any assumptions, nobody has to look at their hand to work out what is going on, and nobody has any ethical problems.

[helene_t]

gnasher, on May 17 2009, 09:02 PM, said:

If the failure to alert implies that it was for penalties, but it later turns out that it was systemically something else, the director either rewinds the auction or adjusts the score (depending on when the misinformation is discovered).

I think it's a strong assumption that players know which doubles are alertable. This is not a very common double.

Besides, the partnership may very well not have any specific agreement about this double.

[gnasher]

helene_t, on May 17 2009, 09:08 PM, said:

I think it's a strong assumption that players know which doubles are alertable. This is not a very common double.

I did say, in the part that you didn't quote, "If ... a failure to alert makes it clear what that double means."

Suppose that it were in England, where a significant proportion of players claim to find the alerting rules too complicated to understand and apply, especially when it comes to doubles (despite the actual simplicity of the rule). Then neither an alert nor a non-alert would make the meaning clear, and a responder with any sense would ask.

Quote

Besides, the partnership may very well not have any specific agreement about this double.

If a non-alert includes the possibility that the double is undiscussed, a non-alert will not make it clear what the double means, so responder will ask.