Unauthorized Information?

[Walddk]

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sk83ha1094d74ck1084]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

Matchpoints. You are South, East is dealer and passes and so do you. LHO opens 1NT, and your partner asks East about the range. "11-14" is the reply whereupon your partner passes.

 

East does too and now you reopen with a double, all pass. The contract goes 2 down resulting in a very good score for NS. Please answer these questions:

 

1. Did you get unauthorized information?

2. If yes, did you take advantage of the UI?

3. Is it a clear double without the UI?

4. Is pass a logical alternative at this form of scoring?

 

Roland

[Trpltrbl]

1) Teach yr pd to look at CC before the game.

2) Don't think so, I would double or bid something to show this type of hand.

3) See 2

4) Yes, it is for some, but I bid agressive.

 

GBB :lol:

[Fluffy]

1. No

2. No

3. Depends on agreements but probably yes.

4. Only because of the vulnerability, but not a great choice. Anyway depends on the system we play on direct seat.

[mr1303]

1) I don't think so. He would bid something over a strong NT, when you're likely to have even less strength, and they're more likely to find a penalty double?

 

2) I would do something with this hand at all positions and all vulnerabilities. What I would do would depend on my methods, e.g. a DONT 2C might be an option.

 

3) Yes, if double as a passed hand shows a maximum passed hand with some useful intermediates, I think this is a clear-cut action.

 

4) Anyone any good should be bidding with these cards, IMO. LOLs may be passing, but I won't be.

[kenberg]

As always, I plead ignorance of what the law actually is. Also as always, I have opinions.

 

a. It's best if N always (or never) asks for the range before calling. If he only asks when he has enough values where he might enter the auction, then yes, there is UI.

 

b. If he sometimes asks and sometimes doesn't, it's a particularly sticky situation here since he has asked but then not acted over a fairly low NT range. This would appear to border on deliberate UI.

 

c. The ACBL has adopted a much criticized rule that requires the partner of the NT bidder to annouce the range directly after the call. Critics see it as rampant silliness, but supporters cite situations such as this in justification. I think they have a point.

 

d. I see no reason to double with the S hand, but that's me. I imagine many would refuse to go quietly.

 

Ken

[hrothgar]

IF YOU WANT PEOPLE TO ANSWER A QUESTION REGARDING HOW THEY WOULD BID IN THE ABSENCE OF UI, THEN PRESENT THE PROBLEM WITHOUT UI.

 

In this case, you should simply present the South hand, along with the auction.

 

West opened an 11-14 HCP 1NT opening.

Partner and RHO passed.

Partner's pass means XYZ

 

Whats your bid?

[Walddk]

IF YOU WANT PEOPLE TO ANSWER A QUESTION REGARDING HOW THEY WOULD BID IN THE ABSENCE OF UI, THEN PRESENT THE PROBLEM WITHOUT UI.

 

In this case, you should simply present the South hand, along with the auction.

 

West opened an 11-14 HCP 1NT opening.

Partner and RHO passed.

Partner's pass means XYZ

 

Whats your bid?

I don't need you to tell me how to ask my questions. I don't interfere with your business, so I think it's fair to ask you not to interfere with mine. No one asked you to reply if you don't like the post.

 

So go and yell elsewhere if you really must! Thanks.

 

Roland

[Guest Jlall]

For a different point of view...

 

1) Yes. I don't really understand how anyone could answer no. I HIGHLY doubt this player always asks the range, if he does then no UI is given. Assuming he doesn't, what else could asking for the range mean other than that he has a marginal hand and is considering taking a call? This is not uncommon especially at the club level, they will ask your range then pass and they'll always have some values.

 

2) Yes.

 

3) No. I would pass and don't really see any need to bid with a balanced 10 count.

 

4) Obviously I think so since I would pass.

 

As for the ACBL getting grief for forcing us to announce the NT range no matter what it is, I think it's a shame. IMO it's one of the best things they've done (admittedly that's not saying much :lol:).

[hrothgar]

I don't need you to tell me how to ask my questions.

Roland, the reason I made the post is that you DO need someone telling you how to ask your question. At the moment, you are doing a pretty poor job of it.

 

Consider the following definition of "logical alternative" taken from section 16.6 of the EBU's White Book. "A logicial alternative is a call or play which three or more in ten players of equal ability could be expected to make in the particular situation, if playing a similar system and style, but if the irregularity had not occured".

 

The entire issue of logical alternative hinges on what action players would take in the absence of UI.

 

1. Its clear that from questions 3 and 4, that the first order of business is determining whether double is a logical alternative

 

2. Introducing extraneous informtion regarding UI does nothing to improve the accuracy of this process. Indeed, by providing this information you are biasing the results.

 

Personally, I think that if you are going to ask for our help, you have an obligation not to waste our time. Your milage may vary...

[Walddk]

I don't need you to tell me how to ask my questions.

Roland, the reason I made the post is that you DO need someone telling you how to ask your question. At the moment, you are doing a pretty poor job of it.

 

Consider the following definition of "logical alternative" taken from section 16.6 of the EBU's White Book. "A logicial alternative is a call or play which three or more in ten players of equal ability could be expected to make in the particular situation, if playing a similar system and style, but if the irregularity had not occured".

 

The entire issue of logical alternative hinges on what action players would take in the absence of UI.

 

1. Its clear that from questions 3 and 4, that the first order of business is determining whether double is a logical alternative

 

2. Introducing extraneous informtion regarding UI does nothing to improve the accuracy of this process. Indeed, by providing this information you are biasing the results.

 

Personally, I think that if you are going to ask for our help, you have an obligation not to waste our time. Your milage may vary...

If you think you are wasting your time, I suggest that you take no further part in this thread. I put the questions the way I like to put my questions, without asking you for permission first. Believe me, if I needed your advice, you would be the first to know, but I don't.

 

Others don't seem to have any objections to the way I put my questions. You are entitled to your opinion, but the remedy is so simple that it defies belief: stay away if you don't like what you see! Hope this is clear.

 

Your last paragraph is outright offensive.

 

Roland

[david_c]

1. Yes. The fact that partner asked about 1NT is UI. However, if you can demonstrate that partner always asks about the range, then this UI does not suggest anything and you are free to do what you like.

 

2. Well, if it really was me that doubled then I suppose I would know the answer to this question. But it wasn't, so I don't. Fortunately, the TD only needs to consider this question if he intends to issue a PP - that would be excessive here (even if you rule that pass is a LA) because evidently there are plenty of people who think double is automatic.

 

3. No. In fact I would have thought pass was clear until reading other people's replies.

 

4. Yes, pass is a LA.

[Al_U_Card]

Club games bring out the worst in us (sometimes posts do too... :lol: ). When they ask a question, they are ALWAYS providing unauthorized something. Like when my pard looks like Al Pacino as he "emotes" during the play of the hand. On offense, the histrionics are comical, but on defense, I have a real problem with how to play without using his "body language" to our advantage......

 

That said, free advice is usually worth what it costs, as per the above.

[Chamaco]

1. Did you get unauthorized information?

2. If yes, did you take advantage of the UI?

 

Sort of.

If pard asks the NT range before bidding and passes after hearing the 11-14 range, I expect that he has a shapely hand but nonconstructive: say something like KQxxx-x-QJ9xx-xx (yes I know some people do it with worse suits).

 

Vs strong NT, the overcalls are more nuisance-oriented than constructive oriented, so, vs a strong NT, pard would overcall his 2suiter;

But vs the weak NT, the system is geared towards bidding constructively, showing at least opening values (or equivalent playing strength), so with such a hand, pard would pass.

 

So, doubling in 4th seat vs weak NT with 10 hcp only becomes more a protective bid (if pard indeed has such a 2 suiter, probably there is a good partscore sac even in a doubled contract of 2 of a suit).

 

3. Is it a clear double without the UI?

4. Is pass a logical alternative at this form of scoring?

 

 

In his excellent book on competitive bidding, Kaplan has a whole chapter on bidding vs weak and strong NT.

He writes that, in balancing seat vs weak NT, if anything, he requires a hand even stronger than doubling in direct seat, because opps value are sitting OVER his and pard will lead the wrong suit 8 times out of 10.

Perhaps this might be a little too much, yet, doubling with 10 hcp in 4th seat sounds crazy.

 

Therefore, I think that passing is not only a logical alternative, but *the most* logical bid, regardless of the form of scoring, unless there was UI.

[Walddk]

3. Is it a clear double without the UI?

4. Is pass a logical alternative at this form of scoring?

 

 

In his excellent book on competitive bidding, Kaplan has a whole chapter on bidding vs weak and strong NT.

He writes that, in balancing seat vs weak NT, if anything, he requires a hand even stronger than doubling in direct seat, because opps value are sitting OVER his.

Perhaps this might be a little too much, yet, doubling with 10 hcp in 4th seat sounds crazy.

 

Therefore, I think that passing is not only a logical alternative, but *the most* logical bid, regardless of the form of scoring, unless there was UI.

Maybe you missed that South passed initially? He can hardly be stronger for his re-opning double.

 

Roland

[Chamaco]

Maybe you missed that South passed initially? He can hardly be stronger for his re-opning double.

 

Roland

No, I noticed that.

That does not alter significantly the problem.

The problem can be simply that even if pard knows we have at most 11 hcp, he shall scramble and be doubled if the pard of the weak notrumper has about 10 hcp.

 

Also, as Kaplan suggests, when one doubles for penalty a weak NT, his pard should leave it in with most balanced shapes, even holding few hcp, because usually the minus is less negative than the score after scrambling at the 2 level and being doubled.

If we reopen in 4th seat (even being a passed hand) certainly pard won't play us for an opening hand but if he does not have a shapely hand (and there is nothing that tells us he is shapely), he will have the same problems: e.g. if our pard has a balanced 10 or 9, he is supposed to leave the double in (but according to Kaplan, he is supposed to do the same even holding a balanced 6 or so), and in the current scenario, this suggests 1NTX should make and/or if we scramble in a doubled partscore we'll lose the board.

 

Indeed, the fact we are a passed hand eases the task of the weak NT side, because they know we do not have a huge power here.

 

Doubling here means gambling that our pard has more hcp than RHO.

[cherdano]

It would not occur to me to double with this hand (unless it shows ♣/♥ 4-4).

 

Arend

[Codo]

1. Do you have an UI?

Not about the HCPs. You know, that pd is between 6 and 14- HE did not double and opps made no attempt to reach game.

But maybe you have an UI about the shape. If you play different systems over weak and strong NT, me may had a bid against a strong NT but not against this weak one.

So I believe too, that he has a kind of two-suited hand.

 

2. Of course pass is an alternative, many players used this bid. So the TD must rule against N/S.

 

3. I personally think, that x is without any alternative in MPs without the UI. To let them play 1 NT undoubled is more often then not a very bad result. And I have perfect describtion of my hand: Balanced and max. for my first pass. Pd cannot go wrong. Without this postin, I had still bid X after an UI, bgecause I thought, it is obvious. I have still much to learn.

[cherdano]

Maybe I should try playing weak NT against all those who automatically double with this hand :) Does noone think that 1NT might actually be the normal contract, and getting -90 might be a good score, because only our stellar defense avoided -120?

 

Arend

[P_Marlowe]

1) Yes

2) Depends on your agreement,

what do you bid against weak / strong NT

3,4) depends on your agreement,

I would have bid 2C (Lionel), showing

Hearts and Clubs

If Dbl shows Minor and Mayor ... that's perfect,

but I dont believe, that a DBL, which shows only

points is sensible, i.e. making such a Dbl would

imply the use of UI

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[pigpenz]

Having played 1nt(10-13) for about 25 yrs i have seen about everything that can happen :)

 

the best thing is to pre announce that we play weak no trump 10-13hcp, but even that doesnt stop the hesitations et all. You can't really take anything from it cause players have a problem and you have to take it the good with the bad. They bid when they should double and double when they should bid :(

 

On the last question i would not balance cause chances are they still have the balance of the points, from my own personal experiences the weak no trumpers partner will usually run out from it before the doubles fly, so when it goes 1nt pass pass (tread with caution!)

[42]

1. Did you get unauthorized information?

Unless my partner ALWAYS asks, yes. His question might ask for min / max :) Or he is a little bit too weak to bid now what he would have done against a strong NT

2. If yes, did you take advantage of the UI?

Yes, easier now to make some action with this shape and maximum for the initial pass

3. Is it a clear double without the UI?

not for me chicken.

4. Is pass a logical alternative at this form of scoring?

yes

[Finch]

Vs strong NT, the overcalls are more nuisance-oriented than constructive oriented, so, vs a strong NT, pard would overcall his 2suiter;

But vs the weak NT, the system is geared towards bidding constructively, showing at least opening values (or equivalent playing strength), so with such a hand, pard would pass.

That may well be your approach to the game. It may even be right. So, as the original question was aimed at "you" I guess you've answered the original question.

 

However, this approach to defending 1NT openings is not universal.

[han]

It would probably not have occured to me to double. I do not have a lot of experience defending against weak NT.

 

Whether there was UI depends on whether it was common for partner to ask. For instance, in ACBL land you are supposed to announce your strength any time you open 1NT. So if someone forgets, it is quite common for people to ask, even if they have nothing.

[Chamaco]

That may well be your approach to the game. It may even be right.  So, as the original question was aimed at "you" I guess you've answered the original question.

 

However, this approach to defending 1NT openings is not universal.

 

The comment is fair, although under the same assumptions, we should put a disclaimer when replying to ANY post (there is ALWAYS the style issue).

 

However, I'd like you to answer the following questions:

 

a. do you think it is more common to play different styles of overcalls vs weak/strong NT or same style regardless of NT range ?

 

b. after your pard has asked the range, does it alter significantly the odds that he plays the same style vs weak NT or not ?

 

 

After answering these questions, I'd like you to answer a 3rd:

in light of answers a and b, do you think that the balancer has more useful info than if pard did not ask anything ?

[Finch]

1. Did you get unauthorized information?

2. If yes, did you take advantage of the UI?

3. Is it a clear double without the UI?

4. Is pass a logical alternative at this form of scoring?

1. Probably, unless there is evidence that partner absolutely always asks. It's funny how some people say they always ask... until they have a balanced 5-count and all of a sudden they don't.

 

4. Yes. Just. Maybe. Depends on system. Pass is easily a LA at IMPs, and not a LA at love all, pairs. This is the most marginal set-up.

 

3. Depends on my defence to 1NT, and on partner's habits. In one partnership I play double as showing a balanced(ish) maximum pass, so if I don't double on this hand, there's no point in playing this method. In another partnership I play double as a 3-suiter including spades, and I'm not sure I would. Only 3 spades is OK, but not ideal (as partner will likely lead them if he passes), and I'd like a 5-card suit outside.

 

2. If I have UI, then it definitely suggests acting, and double is the most flexible action. So if 1. is a yes and 4. is a yes, then 2. is a yes.