[aguahombre]

EricK, on 2011-November-06, 10:26, said:

There is a difference, IMO, between these situations and the ones in this thread. You are not meant to get an advantage from having agreements which your opponents don't know. If, in order to find out your agreements, the opponents are forced to, or even just happen to, make a revealing tell, then it does not seem fair to take advantage of that.

If they are completely familiar with your agreements then you are, of course, at liberty to take advantage of any "reads" you get.

You might be right about that, in general, Erick. I was still thinking about when the opponent seems extra interested in the bid being forcing.

[blackshoe]

If your opponent is not fully disclosing his agreements, then you are entitled to require him to do so. However, IMO there comes a point when you have to recognize that badgering your opponent is not the right way to get full disclosure. At that point, the right way is to call the director. If you keep that in mind, the question of "unethical use of tells" will be moot.

I do wonder, Erick, if you are the director called to the table and told that such a situation has arisen, how will you rule, and under what Law(s)? That last part is important!

[EricK]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-06, 14:38, said:

If your opponent is not fully disclosing his agreements, then you are entitled to require him to do so. However, IMO there comes a point when you have to recognize that badgering your opponent is not the right way to get full disclosure. At that point, the right way is to call the director. If you keep that in mind, the question of "unethical use of tells" will be moot.

I do wonder, Erick, if you are the director called to the table and told that such a situation has arisen, how will you rule, and under what Law(s)? That last part is important!

Before I go on I must make it clear that I am not a director, nor do I claim to know all the laws of the game. But I do think I understand the "spirit". And my posts are purely with regard to that.

I think we should separate 3 things:
1. Being entitled to know agreements
2. Making calls based on opponent's desire/need to know
3. Badgering opposition

1. We both agree, I think, that the opposition are entitled to know our agreements and it is our duty to not hide any details etc.

2. If the opponents don't know and have to ask, then what conclusions are we allowed to draw from their asking, and the manner of their asking? Here, I believe that it is wrong to make a call other than the one you would have made had they not asked. To do so is to take advantage, indirectly perhaps, of the opponent's ignorance of our agreements. Things get more complicated when it comes to the play of the hand. You will, almost certainly, have a better idea of what that player holds than if they hadn't needed to ask, and it is almost impossible to ignore that in the play (and almost impossible to rule against you if you don't). But very often that won't matter as the rest of the auction will often reveal that information anyway. But I think the sort of situation we have been discussing - passing a forcing bid because RHO checked it was forcing is awful behaviour (unless you would have passed anyway because eg you had completely psyched on an earlier round). And that is independent of how they checked.

3. Badgering the opposition is wrong.

I don't want to say how I would rule and under which laws because I don't know the laws. But I would like to give a warning (or penalty) to the badgerer, and I would ask opener if he really wanted to pass a forcing bid just because 4th hand didn't know his agreements and had to ask (however rudely).

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-06, 03:26, said:

It depends on what the agreement is and what the jurisdiction is. In the ACBL, if your agreement is that opener, having had an overcall passed round to him, and being short in the overcaller's suit, should reopen with a double if at all possible, I would say that's neither unusual nor unexpected, and so requires no alert. If your agreement is that opener, having had an overcall passed round to him, must reopen with a double, and that responder might have, or is expected to have, a better hand for his pass than might normally be expected, then that is unusual, and does require an alert.

In the OP, it's not clear to me whether responder passed because they have an explicit agreement that in such a case opener must reopen with a double, or because he, holding 5 spades, expected his partner to be short in spades, and to reopen with a double if possible because of that. In the ACBL, in the former case I would rule the failure to alert is an infraction; in the latter case I would rule no infraction. I expect, as Wayne suggested, that the same rulings would be appropriate just about anywhere.

NB: the ruling in the "must double" case is predicated on the assumption that the agreement is "highly unusual and unexpected". If that turns out not to be the case, then there is no infraction, at least in the ACBL.

At the table there was some discussion of the risk of responder's pass. Responder opined that partner had to reopen. This seemed consistent with the fact that opener did reopen with a double with a minimum 11 hcp and some 2542 or 2524 (I don't have the hand record here). My impression was that responder believed the reopening was compulsory and therefore that the pass was forcing.

I suggested that you can't really play that way unless you disclose. And that the method wouldn't work so well when you disclose because when you pass with a weak hand overcaller's partner can trap your side into reentering the auction.

Responder countered with "its just bridge".

[gnasher]

Cascade, on 2011-November-06, 15:55, said:

At the table there was some discussion of the risk of responder's pass. Responder opined that partner had to reopen. This seemed consistent with the fact that opener did reopen with a double with a minimum 11 hcp and some 2542 or 2524 (I don't have the hand record here). My impression was that responder believed the reopening was compulsory and therefore that the pass was forcing.

I suggested that you can't really play that way unless you disclose. And that the method wouldn't work so well when you disclose because when you pass with a weak hand overcaller's partner can trap your side into reentering the auction.

Responder countered with "its just bridge".

You could have tried "So what? It's still alertable."

(Though I'm not sure why you were telling your opponents what the rules are. Isn't that what the director is paid for?)

[Cascade]

gnasher, on 2011-November-06, 16:39, said:

You could have tried "So what? It's still alertable."

(Though I'm not sure why you were telling your opponents what the rules are. Isn't that what the director is paid for?)

It was a friendly discussion on a point of interest. It wasn't an attempt to get a ruling. I was curious about the situation so expressed an opinion there and now here for further discussion.

[barmar]

Cascade, on 2011-November-06, 15:55, said:

At the table there was some discussion of the risk of responder's pass. Responder opined that partner had to reopen. This seemed consistent with the fact that opener did reopen with a double with a minimum 11 hcp and some 2542 or 2524 (I don't have the hand record here). My impression was that responder believed the reopening was compulsory and therefore that the pass was forcing.

I wonder if opener would have reopened with 3532 shape and a minimum. And while it couldn't have happened on this hand, is opener really expected to reopen holding 4 cards in the opponent's suit?

The answers to these cases would reveal whether the pass is REALLY forcing.

[Cascade]

barmar, on 2011-November-07, 01:10, said:

I wonder if opener would have reopened with 3532 shape and a minimum. And while it couldn't have happened on this hand, is opener really expected to reopen holding 4 cards in the opponent's suit?

The answers to these cases would reveal whether the pass is REALLY forcing.

The case with three spades is more interesting because the spades can be 5530 around the table.

[gartinmale]

For what it's worth, in the partnership where I have this agreement we have agreed to reopen regardless of shape or strength at matchpoints, but have not agreed to always reopen with a double.

I actually think this is a bad agreement, because we penalty-pass trap our opponents less often than we ourselves get into trouble, but nevertheless we play it, and we would reopen with 3532 shape and a minimum.

[blackshoe]

EricK, on 2011-November-06, 15:38, said:

Before I go on I must make it clear that I am not a director, nor do I claim to know all the laws of the game. But I do think I understand the "spirit". And my posts are purely with regard to that.

I think we should separate 3 things:
1. Being entitled to know agreements
2. Making calls based on opponent's desire/need to know
3. Badgering opposition

1. We both agree, I think, that the opposition are entitled to know our agreements and it is our duty to not hide any details etc.

2. If the opponents don't know and have to ask, then what conclusions are we allowed to draw from their asking, and the manner of their asking? Here, I believe that it is wrong to make a call other than the one you would have made had they not asked. To do so is to take advantage, indirectly perhaps, of the opponent's ignorance of our agreements. Things get more complicated when it comes to the play of the hand. You will, almost certainly, have a better idea of what that player holds than if they hadn't needed to ask, and it is almost impossible to ignore that in the play (and almost impossible to rule against you if you don't). But very often that won't matter as the rest of the auction will often reveal that information anyway. But I think the sort of situation we have been discussing - passing a forcing bid because RHO checked it was forcing is awful behaviour (unless you would have passed anyway because eg you had completely psyched on an earlier round). And that is independent of how they checked.

3. Badgering the opposition is wrong.

I don't want to say how I would rule and under which laws because I don't know the laws. But I would like to give a warning (or penalty) to the badgerer, and I would ask opener if he really wanted to pass a forcing bid just because 4th hand didn't know his agreements and had to ask (however rudely).

1 and 3: yes, we agree.

2: You are permitted to take inference from opponents' mannerisms, at your own risk (Law 73D1). You are not permitted to conceal information about your agreements (Law 20F, Law 40). If a problem arises because one contestant feels the other is not providing full disclosure or because the other contestant feels his opponent is "badgering", or both, the director should be called to handle it. The director will investigate, and will often be able to tell right away which side, if any, is right and which side, if any, is wrong. IAC, after investigation (and possibly consultation with other directors) he will make a ruling. If he's going to consult, he'll make an interim ruling that will allow play to continue. In the normal course of events, though, when your right hand opponent asks a question, you answer, and there is perhaps one follow up question, answered, it is not at all unethical to decide from your opponents mannerisms, to deviate from your partnership agreements. If you have induced more questioning by being sparse with your answers, you have committed an infraction (see Law 40B6). If, having received full disclosure, you continue to ask the same questions, you are committing an infraction (see Law 74A2). In either case, the director should deal with it, but somebody has to call him at some point. I agree that it would be distasteful to take advantage of opponents' mannerisms when you have created the problem (by failing to fully disclose your methods). I'm not at all sure that it's unethical or illegal, though. (The ethics of the game are defined by its rules, so it is only unethical if it's illegal and done knowingly).

In the case in the OP, the discussion took place after the hand, and was apparently friendly — neither side saw fit to call the TD. There was no alert during the auction, responder made a comment during the post hand discussion that "opener had to reopen". The OP then raised the question whether responder's pass should have been alerted. That is a matter for regulation — it is not addressed in the laws, except that Regulating Authorities are authorized to make such regulations. Matchpoint theory does suggest that when your side opens the bidding and your opponents compete, it is losing bridge to allow them to declare a contract at the one level. In that sense, it is "just bridge" that opener should reopen rather than make the final pass. I think though that if the partnership has an explicit agreement that pass here is forcing, it should be alerted.

Cascade, on 2011-November-06, 15:55, said:

At the table there was some discussion of the risk of responder's pass. Responder opined that partner had to reopen. This seemed consistent with the fact that opener did reopen with a double with a minimum 11 hcp and some 2542 or 2524 (I don't have the hand record here). My impression was that responder believed the reopening was compulsory and therefore that the pass was forcing.

I suggested that you can't really play that way unless you disclose. And that the method wouldn't work so well when you disclose because when you pass with a weak hand overcaller's partner can trap your side into reentering the auction.

Responder countered with "its just bridge".

Responder may be mistaken, see my reply to EricK in this post. What did opener have to say in all this discussion?

[EricK]

Quote

I agree that it would be distasteful to take advantage of opponents' mannerisms when you have created the problem (by failing to fully disclose your methods). I'm not at all sure that it's unethical or illegal, though. (The ethics of the game are defined by its rules, so it is only unethical if it's illegal and done knowingly).

Consider the simplest scenario:
You open 1♠, partner responds 1NT which you alert, and RHO simply asks what that is, and you reply "forcing 1NT". RHO now passes. Is it really legal for you to pass (assuming you genuinely play the 1NT as forcing rather than semi-forcing, and you haven't psyched)? Suppose you do pass and it turns out that RHO has nothing much - i.e. no particular reason to ask the question (other than idle curiosity) - and 1NT is a worse contract than you would have reached had you made your systemic bid, would you feel RHO had damaged you by the question, or would you feel that you had "taken an inference from opponents' mannerisms, at your own risk" and let it go?

If you would just let it go, then at least that is a consistent position. But it does mean that opps must continually ask the meaning of your bids whether or not it affects them this round, or be at a constant disadvantage. And as far as I am aware, many regulating authorities act as if asking when you having nothing to think about is equivalent to hesitating with a singleton, or other sharp practices.

[aguahombre]

At least (or should I say, at last?) one good thing in the ACBL; forcing/semi-forcing 1NT is simply announced.

[blackshoe]

EricK, on 2011-November-07, 12:29, said:

Consider the simplest scenario:
You open 1♠, partner responds 1NT which you alert…

Not going to happen since, like Aguahombre, I'm in the ACBL, and we announce "forcing" or "semi-forcing" as appropriate. However, in the unlikely event I'm back in England for this session, yes, I'd alert.

EricK, on 2011-November-07, 12:29, said:

…and RHO simply asks what that is, and you reply "forcing 1NT". RHO now passes. Is it really legal for you to pass (assuming you genuinely play the 1NT as forcing rather than semi-forcing, and you haven't psyched)?

Yes, it is. However, in England, where the forcing NT was certainly rare when I was there 20 years ago, and probably still is, I wouldn't answer "forcing 1NT," I would give a full description of our agreement: "5 to a bad 12 HCP, balanced, unbalanced with a 5 card or longer suit, or possibly a 3 card limit raise, forcing". If partner is a passed hand, I might announce "semi-forcing" when I have that agreement, leave out the reference to a limit raise (with that hand, partner would make a different bid) and change "forcing" to "nominally forcing, but I might pass with a minimum opener". (NB: some pairs play 1NT as always "semi-forcing"). ACBL regulations, in another rare instance where they are IMO better than EBU regs, explicitly state that explaining a convention by naming it is insufficient disclosure; you must describe the agreed meaning. I don't see that in the Orange Book, but I believe the principle is followed by English directors. Others here may be able to confirm that (or not).

EricK, on 2011-November-07, 12:29, said:

Suppose you do pass and it turns out that RHO has nothing much - i.e. no particular reason to ask the question (other than idle curiosity) - and 1NT is a worse contract than you would have reached had you made your systemic bid, would you feel RHO had damaged you by the question, or would you feel that you had "taken an inference from opponents' mannerisms, at your own risk" and let it go?

If you would just let it go, then at least that is a consistent position. But it does mean that opps must continually ask the meaning of your bids whether or not it affects them this round, or be at a constant disadvantage. And as far as I am aware, many regulating authorities act as if asking when you having nothing to think about is equivalent to hesitating with a singleton, or other sharp practices.

Most likely I would let it go — as you say, I passed "at my own risk". However, if RHO generated a lot of histrionics along with his question, I would probably ask for a ruling. After all, if he's just curious, what were all the histrionics about?

The EBU Orange Book is well worth reading on these matters. Chapter 3 covers disclosure, and chapter 5 covers alerting and announcing. Some of what's in there may surprise you. The Tangerine Book is a good summary of the Orange Book specifically for players, but its coverage of these matters is much less thorough.

[mjj29]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-07, 17:21, said:

Yes, it is. However, in England, where the forcing NT was certainly rare when I was there 20 years ago, and probably still is, I wouldn't answer "forcing 1NT," I would give a full description of our agreement: "5 to a bad 12 HCP, balanced, unbalanced with a 5 card or longer suit, or possibly a 3 card limit raise, forcing".

Really? Everyone I've seen play that in England (including myself) would just alert it and say 'forcing' unless questioned further.

Matt

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-07, 09:33, said:

Responder may be mistaken, see my reply to EricK in this post. What did opener have to say in all this discussion?

Opener was less sure but sort of agreed that he had to reopen. At the table opener did reopen with a minimum nearly balanced hand and felt that he was under some pressure to reopen.

[blackshoe]

mjj29, on 2011-November-07, 17:49, said:

Really? Everyone I've seen play that in England (including myself) would just alert it and say 'forcing' unless questioned further.

Really. Part of it is probably that having learned the "ACBL way", where naming a convention is explicitly inadequate disclosure, and anything that even looks like a question is supposed to prompt full disclosure, I have learned to fully explain at the hint of a question. It does seem to me, from what you say here, that what you're effectively doing is "announcing" that 1NT is forcing. Perhaps some future revision of the OB will make that the rule, but it seems to me in the meantime that "forcing" isn't enough, since you give no information about what hand types would make the bid. On the gripping hand, If "everybody" is doing it that way, and no one is complaining or is damaged, what the heck, go for it.

[EricK]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-07, 17:21, said:

The EBU Orange Book is well worth reading on these matters. Chapter 3 covers disclosure, and chapter 5 covers alerting and announcing. Some of what's in there may surprise you. The Tangerine Book is a good summary of the Orange Book specifically for players, but its coverage of these matters is much less thorough.

Unless I misunderstand something this all seems heavily weighted in favour of the pairs who use alertable conventions: If a player doesn't ask the meaning it is his own fault if he gets it wrong; if he asks the meaning when he has a genuine bridge reason, the opps are allowed to use that fact to their advantage; if he asks without a genuine bridge reason then he might be ruled against if the opps guess wrong.

Surely the spirit of the game is that one shouldn't be able to get an advantage by using methods the opponents don't understand?

[c_corgi]

EricK's arguments appear self-evidently correct. If, as it seems, the laws/regulations do not support them, then IMO the laws/regulations need to be changed accordingly.

[blackshoe]

You'll have to take that up with your NBO (for regulations) and the WBFLC (for laws).

I searched my law book for "spirit". The word is not in it. I suppose the closest is Law 72A: Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these Laws. Also perhaps Law 72B1: A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.

There is, in the ACBL, a Code of Active Ethics, which may be what you're looking for, but it is not an ACBL regulation, and does not in itself have the force of law (and wouldn't apply in England anyway). Not sure if there's a similar thing in the EBU, and right now I'm too tired to go looking, so you're on your own.

BTW, the appearance of the word "ethical" in Law 72A is the only place in the laws where that word appears; "ethics" does not appear.

[campboy]

The regulations in question (Orange Book 3E) do make it clear that questions asked in a neutral manner about doubles or alerted calls are not likely to be judged illegally misleading. Given that, I think they get the emphasis about right.