StevenG

Which brings me back to my original question. With only a meta-agreement that a double is essentially takeout, how does one decide at the table whether it best described as competitive or as takeout. I can assure you that if I were to ask any of my partners whether our doubles were takeout or competitive, not one would know what was meant by a competitive double. Nor indeed, would 99% of the non-anoraks in any bridge club. I would have doubled as North on this hand. That is my general style. Perhaps we should alert all doubles in competitive auctions since they are essentially "do something sensible partner" doubles on balanced-ish hands with values. Then when opponents ask we can say "competitive" and hope they are constrained by the UI they have accidentally (and needlessly) created. Even better, they might actually assume it's penalty and go horribly wrong.

But how does South know which it is? Their agreement is takeout. You told me upthread not to worry about these things.

It seems to me that, on this hand, South can deduce that North's second double is essentially competitive, rather than purely takeout. However, if South held a different hand (with, say, a couple more spades), he might be totally confident that the double was genuinely takeout. This isn't about agreements, but about bridge logic. Are we supposed to alert agreements, or to alert on the basis of what we can deduce about a double? A different question. I sometimes make a double that is unambigously takeout, because I can deduce that partner will convert it to penalties, which is, of course, what I really want to do but systemically can't. If I don't expect partner to bid again, then, by the OB definition, it's not a takeout double. So, what sort of double is it?

But, surely there becomes a point at which, despite the meta-agreement, the probability is high enough that it should be described as (per the OB) competitive, or maybe even optional. In which case, they are "not takeout" and therefore alertable. But at the table I have no idea - after all, we're both just muddling through, trying to find the best score on this particular hand.

The problem is that the EBU has offered no guidance as to what is alertable in more complex situations. Jeremy's articles for English Bridge only covered the very basic situations and skirted carefully around anything more difficult. I usually find that if partner doubles a low-level contract we will have no agreement about the specific sequence - after all, we have probably never doubled before in that sequence. We will however have a meta-agreement that it is takeout. But then the negative inferences from the fact that partner doubled rather than find a bid will add some very strong distributional constraints to partners hand, effectively making the double a constructive bid. So, what then? Do I ponder for ten minutes or so trying to work out the probability that, over all possible deals that fit this particular sequence, I might choose to convert it to penalty? Or that partner could work out that I might choose to convert it to penalty? Just so that I can alert the bid as "not quite takeout"? Do I heck! After all, I know no more than the opponents. Sorry EBU, but it is just too difficult for mee.

If you do not know what the UI is, or what it suggests, you cannot possibly be taking advantage of the UI by ignoring it. That does not, however, absolve you of your responsibilities under Law 16.

I assume that those sequences were played by your opponents, though. And you still remember them. Isn't that really my point? It's general bridge knowledge that Ghestem players often forget their own system (but I'm not arguing about Ghestem sequences, where there almost certainly is a history of forgets). If you find yourself playing with a strange partner who opens 1NT, you Stayman, and he jumps to 6♥, I'm sure you have a good idea of what's going on, even though you've barely spoken to that partner before.

There seems to be the presumption (in the EBU) that fielding a misbid is somehow equivalent to having a concealed partnership understanding. And yet, I've had these sequences perpetrated against me regularly over the years. If my partner comes up with an impossible bid, the chances are I have a fair idea what is meant - but that is not from partnership experience, but from general bridge knowledge, i.e. having had analogous sequences played against me, and I cannot see any legal or ethical problem with "fielding" under those circumstances.

I learnt that 1♣-1NT showed four clubs and 8-10 points, when relearning the basics in the early 90s. My copy of "All about Acol" states this (not entirely clearly, though).

It seems to me that it's also risky, as it gives opponents the chance to escape from a bad contract (or to get a huge score if a running suit allows them to sneak home). Certainly, if opponents are vulnerable, my preference is to pass (which I can do quite ethically, as my partners never psych) and take my +200, which is often the best score available and rarely a disaster. I too find the EBU position seriously flawed.

I really cannot see how the UI demonstrably suggests a ♠ lead. On the bidding, East must be short in the suit.

Surely "clubs are good" means "play clubs from the top down".

Many (weaker) players locally play 1NT-2♦-2♥-3♦ as a weak takeout into diamonds. They do not realise that this invalidates the description of 2♦ as a transfer. I strongly suspect that West plays this, but East doesn't.

If the forum icon shows in black, the systems thinks it contains unread posts. If so, click on the icon to set the forum as read. Your reading history from before the upgrade has been forgotten, so it thinks you need to reread all the historical posts.

It seems to me that if partner makes a bid that would be illegal if part of an agreement, then a conversation that goes "What did you think of the bid?", "Good bid, I'd make it every time" creates an agreement that makes it impossible to use the bid legally again, whereas if the reply is "Horrible. Don't ever do it again" (whatever you really think), this leaves him free to make the same bid again. Which appears to me to be ridiculous.

What about the one time in the 100 that he asked you "was that bid OK?" during the post-mortem?

Change to "the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that is demonstrably suggested over another by the extraneous information" for a start.

But ... shouldn't a hard calculation on an unusual hand have considerably more weight than a "general rule"?

I have a similar problem to Ed. What the hesitation suggests to me is that, given the limited nature of his hand, the tanker must have long hearts and a few good controls - which, it turns out, is exactly what he did have. But with my 3-card support, it is clear that heart controls are not going to stand up in a doubled contract. So where else in his hand are tricks going to come from? (The hesitation doesn't change my excellent defensive prospects.) I don't see that the hesitation makes his hand more oriented towards defence, since it suggests his defensive values are wasted, so why does it make doubling more attractive?

I expect my partner to ask if she doesn't understand the bid and not to ask if she does. That is dependent on whether we are familiar with the opponents' system. I'm sure you do. Is that intended to refute my interpretation of the laws, or is it merely an observation that because of your partner's approach you would never be in the situation I describe? Incidentally, I don't understand how anyone can ever know for certain what an opponent's bid means, unless it's already come up in the current session, or it's visible on their convention card. My opponents don't promise to play the same methods on Tuesday as they did on Monday. It's meant to imply only that, if we are unfamiliar with the opponents' system, the UI that partner asked about a bid should not convey any information. As for people changing their system, that's very rare in my world (which, I'm well aware, is not your world, but is probably rather more typical of most EBU members).

I expect my partner to ask if she doesn't understand the bid and not to ask if she does. That is dependent on whether we are familiar with the opponents' system. If and only if the opponents are playing an unfamiliar system, it wouuld be easier if could ask about any alerted bid during the auction, since in this case the act of not asking, and thereby showing no interest, probably passes more UI than the act of asking.

I remember an occasion when I decided to bid 2m. While my hand was making its way to the bidding box I heard a loud announcement of "Spades" from a neighbouring table. My hand automatically started heading towards the 2♠ card. On that occasion I caught myself in time, and I knew what had happened. But, if the 2♠ card had found itself on the table, would that have been a Law 25A case? It was clearly inadvertent, and, equally clearly, not a pure mechanical error.

I really dislike the Australian system, just because you can't tell how well a team is doing by where it's sitting. I feel as though I am playing in a vacuum; previously, moving up as you did well, or down as you did poorly, provided some sort of emotional response. Doubtless the majority of posters here play in teams that expect to do well, and are relieved that their occasional less successful days are now obscured. As someone who plays in weaker teams, it was always a boost when we achieved a table number in single digits, even though we would inevitably plummet later. Sometimes that was, for me, the only highlight of the event. Alas, no more!

But the circumstances are not identical. Declarer can pull the jack out of his hand, spot that he needs to play the king, put the jack back and play the king. The point at which the jack is actually and irrevocably played is quite late in the process - much later in playing from hand than in calling for a card from dummy.

It is probable that they don't play 3♥ as anything, i.e. it's an impossible bid.