[Rodney26]

peachy, on May 24 2010, 01:33 AM, said:

Rodney26, on May 23 2010, 10:24 PM, said:

The redouble has to be ACBL alertable. The standard meaning has to be business. I don't think it is ethical bridge to make the case that everyone plays the redouble as a runout, so it isn't alertable.

Non-natural bids in a runout system should be alerted.

What should be alerted is what the regulation says should be alerted. IMO, a runout methods by using Rdbl after 1NT opening is doubled, is not unusual or unexpected, certainly not highly unusual. Also, the Alert Regulations are not defining what is or is not "standard". This is what the regulation says, oft repeated in this thread:

PART IV: DOUBLES, REDOUBLES AND PASSES
Except for those doubles with highly unusual or unexpected meanings, doubles do not require an Alert.

I completely disagree. Using xx as part of a runout must be alerted and disclosed. It is absolutely highly unusual and unexpected that this bid would mean the minors. How on earth is an opponent supposed to know that?

[TylerE]

If I felt like being a smart-ass, I'd say that THIS opponent should know that there are only 40 HCP is the deck.

[RMB1]

Fluffy, on May 24 2010, 04:21 PM, said:

If dealer had psyched 1NT it might be reasonable for south to bid just 2♥ to lure redoubler into doubling a partscore since he is in a forcing pass situation. ...

If West said he bid 2♥ because XX was strong/to play, and he thought/gambled/hoped that 2♥ would be forcing on the opponents. Then I would rule that (a) West had been damaged and (b) the 2♥ was not a serious error (although I might have to rule it was "gambling"). [Assuming there had been a failure to alert.]

This post has been edited by RMB1: 2010-May-24, 13:44

[peachy]

Rodney26, on May 24 2010, 10:44 AM, said:

peachy, on May 24 2010, 01:33 AM, said:

PART IV: DOUBLES, REDOUBLES AND PASSES
Except for those doubles with highly unusual or unexpected meanings, doubles do not require an Alert.

I completely disagree. Using xx as part of a runout must be alerted and disclosed. It is absolutely highly unusual and unexpected that this bid would mean the minors. How on earth is an opponent supposed to know that?

By asking.

I don't intend to endlessly defend my opinion. I came to it by reading the regulation and coming to a different conclusion than you. If a definitive answer is needed [for example, to judge whether adjustment in the originally posted case is right] then in ACBL that answer would be from ACBL.

[campboy]

People keep talking about whether West (who has admittedly done something very bizarre) might have acted differently with different information, but there is also the issue of whether East, who is probably aware that his partner is liable to do bizarre things, would act differently with correct information. East may well have taken into account the possibility of West having a 9-count had he realised that the redouble was not natural.

[kevperk]

The ACBL alert regulation is admittedly not as clear-cut as "alert artificial bids and don't alert natural bids", but the exceptions to this are a much shorter list than people seem to believe. For doubles, the penalty and simple takeout meaning are generally the nonalertable meaning. For redoubles, I would think the penalty meaning would be nonalertable. I'm not sure about redouble for takeout. But any other meaning would seem to me to be artificial and clearly be alertable.

[pran]

shyams, on May 24 2010, 10:13 AM, said:

A simple exercise in probability: Assuming no dealing error, which hand do you think is more probable as a 13-card dealt hand? Is it: ♠AKQJ1098765432  ♥None  ♦None  ♣None OR this:  ♠A6532  ♥KQ74  ♦96  ♣82

Since nobody seems to have bothered answering: The two hands have exactly the same probability!

[peachy]

kevperk, on May 24 2010, 01:00 PM, said:

I'm not sure about redouble for takeout. But any other meaning would seem to me to be artificial and clearly be alertable.

I keep beating a dead horse and will stop after this.

the ACBL alert regulation on doubles and redoubles is not based on and does not even discuss some meaning being "natural" or "standard" or "artificial" or "conventional".

Again, the alertability of DBL or RDBL depends on the answer to the question: Is it specifically defined as alertable? When it is not, then: Is it highly unusual or unexpected?

[blackshoe]

peachy, on May 24 2010, 02:41 PM, said:

Again, the alertability of DBL or RDBL depends on the answer to the question: Is it specifically defined as alertable? When it is not, then: Is it highly unusual or unexpected?

Peachy is right about this, although I disagree with his conclusion about the particular redouble we're discussing.

[campboy]

pran, on May 24 2010, 07:27 PM, said:

shyams, on May 24 2010, 10:13 AM, said:

A simple exercise in probability: Assuming no dealing error, which hand do you think is more probable as a 13-card dealt hand? Is it: ♠AKQJ1098765432  ♥None  ♦None  ♣None OR this:  ♠A6532  ♥KQ74  ♦96  ♣82

Since nobody seems to have bothered answering: The two hands have exactly the same probability!

Well, duh. Now riddle me this: assuming there was a dealing infraction of some sort, which of those hands is more likely? What is the implication of your answer in a Bayesian context?

[awm]

A redouble in this auction which is simply SOS or "let's get out of 1NTX" is probably not alertable. Playing low-level redoubles is SOS is quite common and arguably more "expected" than playing them as business, just as playing double as "takeout" or "negative" is more common and expected at the one-level than playing double as "penalty" even though penalty is the natural meaning.

Of course, a redouble which shows specifically the two minors should be alertable, as this is not the expected meaning. But it's not clear how/why the bidding would be different in this case over a redouble which was general SOS than over a redouble which is specifically minors.

[blackshoe]

awm, on May 24 2010, 04:31 PM, said:

Playing low-level redoubles is SOS is quite common and arguably more "expected" than playing them as business, just as playing double as "takeout" or "negative" is more common and expected at the one-level than playing double as "penalty" even though penalty is the natural meaning.

It would seem our experience in this area is not the same.

Quote

Of course, a redouble which shows specifically the two minors should be alertable, as this is not the expected meaning. But it's not clear how/why the bidding would be different in this case over a redouble which was general SOS than over a redouble which is specifically minors.

Maybe it makes no difference in this case, but it might matter in others.

[dburn]

The difficulty with the notion that something should be alerted if it is "highly unusual" or "unexpected" is, of course, that it leaves open the question "unusual to whom?" or "unexpected by whom?" There are no doubt many players for whom any redouble that is not to play is "highly unusual" and more or less totally "unexpected". There are no doubt many other players for whom almost all redoubles are for rescue (or a transfer, or show a top honour in the suit of partner's overcall, or show three-card support for the suit of partner's response, or...). A Committee containing players in both of the categories above may experience some difficulty in coming to a decision, given the vagueness of the regulation.

The primary (indeed, the only) reason for alerting anything at all is not to conform to some set of regulations, however well intended. Instead, it is to ensure that your opponents will know what is happening in any given auction, especially when there is no reason to suppose that they can work it out from what would be the "natural" significance of your calls in that auction.

For that reason I would expect, in the absence of a completely clear regulation to the contrary, that any player would alert any redouble that expressly showed a desire for partner not to play the present contract redoubled. If the regulations leave the question of "alertability" (of a redouble or of anything else) open to doubt, then: [a] the regulations should be amended so that they do not; and [b] in the meantime, players should follow the principle I have just cited.

That said: if the bidding proceeded 1NT - penalty double - business redouble to me, and I held a nine count, I would consider it highly likely that all was not what it seemed, and I would ask a question or two before making my next call, rather than at the end of the play. But I am an experienced player with the firm belief that I should take certain steps in the presence of possible misinformation from the opponents; I can understand that a less experienced player (or one with a less firm belief) might act otherwise.

[kevperk]

My assertion of the alertability of doubles and redoubles corresponding with the artificiallity of the bid is not based on the alerting regulation defining it as such, but, in my mind, tied to the usual and expected meaning of the bids, as the regulations say, in light of historical usage. That is why takeout meanings, although artificial, are not alertable.

[Mbodell]

I think there also might be a difference depending on how much weight is given to asking question in the auction conveying UI in different jurisdictions. In the ACBL there are many places where multiple quite different meanings are not alertable, even in simple contested auctions similar to this. The solution, in the ACBL, is that people are encouraged to ask more than in some jurisdictions.

I personally would alert any non-business XX of 1nt-X; however, I would not expect any non-alerted XX of 1nt-X to be business (and would ask if I thought it relevant, which it often would be).

IME (which I have more than most ACBL members given that I play weak NT in many partnerships and mini in one, and have a business XX available as an UPH and conventional XX as a PH), people in the ACBL will often ask about the meaning of XX after the auction 1nt - X - XX even when it isn't alerted.

There is also an understandable discussion here where a number of people want there to be a strict "pregnant/not pregnant" or "dead/not dead" type divide between "alertable/not alertable". That is understandable, and reflects how the laws and TD and what not work. But I think it is worth considering what to do when a bid is not in the black and white but instead in the gray. If a number of experienced (both in the sense of bridge but also in the sense of the alert chart) players are uncertain if a given bid is alertable, then how much should we penalize someone for not alerting it? On the one side the ACBL does ask people "protect themselves" by asking when things aren't clear. On the other side the ACBL does tell people when in doubt they should alert (which is why I alert non-business XX, doubt, not certainty).

[pran]

campboy, on May 24 2010, 09:21 PM, said:

pran, on May 24 2010, 07:27 PM, said:

shyams, on May 24 2010, 10:13 AM, said:

A simple exercise in probability: Assuming no dealing error, which hand do you think is more probable as a 13-card dealt hand? Is it: ♠AKQJ1098765432  ♥None  ♦None  ♣None OR this:  ♠A6532  ♥KQ74  ♦96  ♣82

Since nobody seems to have bothered answering: The two hands have exactly the same probability!

Well, duh. Now riddle me this: assuming there was a dealing infraction of some sort, which of those hands is more likely? What is the implication of your answer in a Bayesian context?

The question included: Assuming no dealing error.
Why change this condition to something that has no answer?

[campboy]

Well, bluejak suggested that the hand might not have been fairly dealt. If your answer to this begins by assuming that the hand was fairly dealt, then it is useless.

As any of my first-year probability students would be able to tell you, the answer to the question "how likely is it that this board was fairly dealt given the hand I have?" depends on three things: the ab initio chance of a fair deal; the chance of this hand being dealt given a fair deal (which is, as you say, the same for every hand); and the chance of this hand being dealt given an unfair deal (which very much isn't).

[helene_t]

dburn, on May 23 2010, 03:36 AM, said:

It transpired that North's explanation was in error - South's opening bid actually showed the ace of clubs.

Good board for the kgr system

[pran]

campboy, on May 25 2010, 11:49 AM, said:

Well, bluejak suggested that the hand might not have been fairly dealt. If your answer to this begins by assuming that the hand was fairly dealt, then it is useless.

As any of my first-year probability students would be able to tell you, the answer to the question "how likely is it that this board was fairly dealt given the hand I have?" depends on three things: the ab initio chance of a fair deal; the chance of this hand being dealt given a fair deal (which is, as you say, the same for every hand); and the chance of this hand being dealt given an unfair deal (which very much isn't).

You haven't bothered to read shyams' question that I quoted and to which I answered, have you?

[campboy]

pran, on May 25 2010, 01:46 PM, said:

campboy, on May 25 2010, 11:49 AM, said:

Well, bluejak suggested that the hand might not have been fairly dealt. If your answer to this begins by assuming that the hand was fairly dealt, then it is useless.

As any of my first-year probability students would be able to tell you, the answer to the question "how likely is it that this board was fairly dealt given the hand I have?" depends on three things: the ab initio chance of a fair deal; the chance of this hand being dealt given a fair deal (which is, as you say, the same for every hand); and the chance of this hand being dealt given an unfair deal (which very much isn't).

You haven't bothered to read shyams' question that I quoted and to which I answered, have you?

Did you read bluejak's post to which shayams' (rhetorical) question was a response? My point was that it is the wrong question to be asking if you are interested in whether the hand was legitimately dealt.

Admittedly I may have misinterpreted your response to the question, which I took as agreeing with shayams' point. Apologies if this is not what you intended.