Ethical Question

[awm]

Suppose the following auction happens:

 

1NT(1) - X(2) - XX(3) - Pass(4)

 

(1) Weak

(2) Penalty

(3) Alerted; explained as forcing with a one-suited hand

(4) Asks what the XX means before passing

 

So here are the questions:

 

(1) Is it ethical for the fourth player (Passer) in this auction to ask about the meaning of redouble if his hand is not such that he would ever consider bidding in this auction?

 

(2) Is it ethical for the first player (1NT opener) to decide to pass the redouble after describing it as forcing on the basis that the fourth's player's questions about the redouble implied a hand that was considering running?

 

(3) Suppose opener describes the redouble as forcing and then passes. Is it ethical for the second player (Doubler) to run from 1NTXX despite having the unauthorized information that partner asked about the meaning of redouble? Does the fact that redouble was described as forcing and then passed effect this?

[TimG]

Suppose the following auction happens:

 

1NT(1) - X(2) - XX(3) - Pass(4)

 

(1) Weak

(2) Penalty

(3) Alerted; explained as forcing with a one-suited hand

(4) Asks what the XX means before passing

 

So here are the questions:

 

(1) Is it ethical for the fourth player (Passer) in this auction to ask about the meaning of redouble if his hand is not such that he would ever consider bidding in this auction?

Are you suggesting that asking questions shows something about the hand? I think you get into a problem if you decide that a player can only ask when he would consider action, because then the question, or absence of a question, transmits information to his partner.

 

Regarding (2): there shouldn't be much need for further questions. The player who asks should say something along the lines of "please explain" when he gets the alert, and opener should make a sufficient description. Was the description: "single suited"? Then the player asked "is it forcing"? and opener clarified? Or, was the description something like: "partner has a single suited hand; I am forced to bid 2C so he can show his suit; partner may be running out or he may be starting a strong sequence"?

 

I believe the Laws say that opener (in this case) may make use of information he assumes from the question, but that he does so at his own risk.

 

(3) I think the pass of the forcing RDBL means: I think we have a good chance of making this. Doubler should be permitted to base his call on this explanation, whether it comes from general bridge knowledge, an explanation from responder, or some combination of the two.

[jdonn]

The only one with a very clear answer is 2. It's ethical, but he does so at his own risk.

[whereagles]

If you define as unethical to ask for meanings if not interested, then:

 

1. No

2. Yes, at his own risk

3. Who knows?

 

Bob Hamman suggested to ask/not ask for meanings randomly, even if not interested, so that it becomes harder to tell whether one's genuinely interested in the bid. So I guess for him at least it's ethical. Under Bob's recommendation, you'd have:

 

1. Yes

2. Yes, at his own risk

3. Yes

[jtfanclub]

#1 is a clear yes to me. If you only ask with a weak hand, then you've effectively created UI no matter what you do.

 

I would always ask in this situation.

[awm]

The only one with a very clear answer is 2. It's ethical, but he does so at his own risk.

But of course, if the answer to (1) is "no" then it's not really as much "at his own risk" right? If it turns out that 4th hand has a good hand and would never bid, then 1NT opener can call the director for the misleading question?

[TimG]

The only one with a very clear answer is 2. It's ethical, but he does so at his own risk.

But of course, if the answer to (1) is "no" then it's not really as much "at his own risk" right? If it turns out that 4th hand has a good hand and would never bid, then 1NT opener can call the director for the misleading question?

Why would 4th hand never bid with a good hand?

 

I think the inference that opener takes from an unethical question is still at his own risk. A coffee housing 4th hand may be in for a procedural penalty.

[DrTodd13]

1) I think a case can be made that you should always ask about every alert even if your hand would never bid. In this way, your pd is not placed in an ethical bind like he would be if you only asked when your hand was potentially relevant. The only way I would consider this "unethical" is if you had some agreement with pd as to what asking a question meant versus not asking. If you consistently ask then I wouldn't consider that "unethical." Leagues may frown on it as it would slow the game down a little.

 

2) I think the fact that he asked a question is authorized information to the opponents. Use at your own peril though. Perhaps the first question they should ask is, "does your pd always ask even if they would never bid?"

 

3) If pd always asks then you have no ethical problem here. Assume he only asks selectively. Now, what would a pass of the XX normally mean with the unauthorized information? 1N guy thinks 1N-XX will score better than 2 of partner's suit. I think this should imply some super-strong and potentially off-shaped hand 1N. Hard to construct a normal 1N hand that has confidence that 1N-XX is better then 2Z. I think that just by partner passing the X that he has a relatively flat hand, with length he'd be likely to bid regardless of his strength. Given this information, you can assess whether you can improve the contract by running. Pass is always a LA here though and unless the X'er is shapely then it might be hard to make an argument that pulling is near mandatory.

[Gerben42]

 

(1) Is it ethical for the fourth player (Passer) in this auction to ask about the meaning of redouble if his hand is not such that he would ever consider bidding in this auction?

 

Sure, he might even have different agreements depending on the forcing nature of Redouble! It was alerted, isn't that "please ask"?

 

(2) Is it ethical for the first player (1NT opener) to decide to pass the redouble after describing it as forcing on the basis that the fourth's player's questions about the redouble implied a hand that was considering running?

 

Ethical yes, dangerous YES, smart... probably not.

 

(3) Suppose opener describes the redouble as forcing and then passes. Is it ethical for the second player (Doubler) to run from 1NTXX despite having the unauthorized information that partner asked about the meaning of redouble? Does the fact that redouble was described as forcing and then passed effect this?

 

What did PASS of the forcing Redouble mean in their system?

[Echognome]

(1) Is it ethical for the fourth player (Passer) in this auction to ask about the meaning of redouble if his hand is not such that he would ever consider bidding in this auction?

 

Clearly unethical by the framing of the question. Note "...if his hand is not such that he would ever consider bidding.." Now, I have my doubts about this ever being true on such an auction and will certainly be impossible to prove. But if it's the case that the hand would never consider bidding, then the hand shouldn't be asking. I don't get what some people are suggesting. Sure, if you asked on every alert then no UI would be conveyed. It would also slow down the game considerably. I think some people are trying to make a general rule to fit to this particular situation. But we could easily come up with another situation where the answer is clear. If you ask, then you convey UI, because people just don't ask when they hold xxx xxx xxx xxxx. If people asked randomly or asked all the time, then there would never be an issue with a question conveying UI. But I will reiterate that I find it hard to believe there's a hand in this particular auction where you wouldn't consider bidding. With the weakest hand, you may run if XX is for business, but pass if it's something artificial.

 

(2) Is it ethical for the first player (1NT opener) to decide to pass the redouble after describing it as forcing on the basis that the fourth's player's questions about the redouble implied a hand that was considering running?

 

Yes. Certainly ethical, but I wouldn't later want to hear complaints of coffee housing, because I can't imagine a hand that would never consider bidding as stated above. As others have said, it's at your own risk.

 

(3) Suppose opener describes the redouble as forcing and then passes. Is it ethical for the second player (Doubler) to run from 1NTXX despite having the unauthorized information that partner asked about the meaning of redouble? Does the fact that redouble was described as forcing and then passed effect this?

When you say "forcing" I presume that wasn't the actual description, but rather the more complete description of "shows a single-suited hand forcing me to bid 2♣" or something similar. Partner's question about the XX is UI to me. The descripton of the XX and RHO's pass are AI to me. So we apply the usual UI rules.

[TimG]

But if it's the case that the hand would never consider bidding, then the hand shouldn't be asking. I don't get what some people are suggesting.

Doesn't that convey information by the lack of a question?

[helene_t]

If it turns out that 4th hand has a good hand and would never bid, then 1NT opener can call the director for the misleading question?

At my club, most people play XX as a transfer to clubs. Now with a good hand with both majors, you might cuebid 2♣. For example.

 

I think almost any hand passer could have might consider bidding given some conceivable meaning of XX. So the question does not convey much information. Maybe it is safe to say that passer does not have a 4333.

[Echognome]

But if it's the case that the hand would never consider bidding, then the hand shouldn't be asking.  I don't get what some people are suggesting.

Doesn't that convey information by the lack of a question?

Everything conveys information. I don't get your point. Passing conveys information. Asking questions convey information. The laws tell us which information is authorised and which information is unauthorised. Like I said, if you asked every time there was an alert, there would be no worry about the information. But that doesn't happen does it?

[mikeh]

It seems to me that one would usually ask a question if one were thinking of bidding... anything else means one is assuming one knows what the xx means.

 

So if one routinely asks when thinking of bidding and doesn't ask when having no thought of bidding, one is conveying UA to one's partner.... and this would become clear, even if only subconsciously, over the course of an established partnership.

 

Therefore, in my view, the asking of a question when one has no intention of bidding is the ethical position.

 

This seems to answer all the other questions. If any player wants to draw an inference from the question, they do so at their own risk UNLESS the question asker were known to be unethical... in which case they'd draw the inference that he wanted to bid....now... as doubler, it would be unethical to draw an inference based on one's view of partner as unethical B)

[kfay]

To me when XX is alerted it's not for penalty so 4 could just be curious what's going on. Is it unethical to ask questions when you're not considering a bid? If it is someone please tell me!

 

To me this seems a fallacy. If this is true then whenever we pass a mysteriously alerted bid partner could assume, consciously or not, that we weren't considering a bid. Obvoiusly this isn't necessarily true, so why should the contrapositive be true?

 

Subsequently I don't see why opener would consider leaving it in because our questions, or lack thereof, could mean anything. Irregardles, opener can make do with whatever assumptions he wants at his own risk. This certainly has never been unethical.

[TimG]

But if it's the case that the hand would never consider bidding, then the hand shouldn't be asking.  I don't get what some people are suggesting.

Doesn't that convey information by the lack of a question?

Everything conveys information. I don't get your point. Passing conveys information. Asking questions convey information. The laws tell us which information is authorised and which information is unauthorised. Like I said, if you asked every time there was an alert, there would be no worry about the information. But that doesn't happen does it?

I guess I should have said: "Doesn't that convey unauthorized information?"

 

If you ask when you are considering action and do not ask when you are going to pass, whether you ask or not is UI for your partner.

 

I don't think this means that you have to ask every time a bid is alerted, but you ought to randomly ask some percentage of the time when you have no intention of taking action.

[cherdano]

I really think there is nothing wrong with asking here even if you aren't planning to bid at all in the first round. Later you will most likely have to make a decision anyway, and for this you will need to know the meaning of redouble anyway. You will need to know it even to understand partner's bid, probably. Partner will have to ask about it anyway. I may need it to deduce what LHO was tanking about before his bid.

What is wrong with asking right away? Is there anything in the rules that says you can only ask if it affects your immediate decision?

[ArtK78]

This is a very difficult topic. One has the absolute right under the regulations to ask questions (whether a bid is alerted or not), but the manner in which the question is asked - even the very fact that the question is asked - can convey unauthorized information.

 

Compare this to another situation:

 

In ACBL competition, one must provide a defense to a Multi 2♦ opening and certain other 2 and 3 level opening bids. When confronted with a Multi 2♦ opening and having been provided with a pamphlet or papers setting forth the defenses (and, presumably, having agreed prior to the 2♦ bid that you and your partner would be using "Defense #1" or "Defense #2") it is unethical to just pass without consulting the defenses that you were given. One must review the defenses provided before acting (sort of like waiting 10 seconds after a skip bid warning) or one may be conveying information to partner that you would have passed no matter what the choices were in the materials provided.

[cherdano]

My point is that asking doesn't convey UI, simply because you will always need to know the meaning of XX, either now or later.

[Echognome]

I can't really put it any better than they do in the Orange Book. Of course the orange book doesn't apply to the ACBL or other jurisdictions, but at least they cite where in the laws they are taking their interpretations.

 

3 E Asking Questions: Unauthorised Information and the Potential to Mislead

 

3 E 1 A player has the right to ask questions at his turn, but should be aware that exercising this right has consequences. It suggests that the player’s action at the current turn depends on the answer to the question. In particular, if a player asks a question and then passes, he has shown an interest in taking some other action had the player received a different answer. Asking about a call which has not been alerted may cause more problems than asking about an alerted call. If, therefore, at a player’s turn to call, he does not need to have a call explained, it is in his interests to defer all questions until either he is about to make the opening lead or his partner’s lead is face-down on the table.

 

3 E 2 If a player asks questions during the auction, then the interest which he has shown is unauthorised information to partner. Partner must carefully avoid taking advantage, which may constrain the actions partner is permitted to take during the remainder of the auction or when on lead during the play. (Law 16A, 73F1)

 

3 E 3 As well as giving unauthorised information to partner, questions about bidding may mislead opponents, in which case they may be entitled to redress. Similarly, declarer’s questions about leads, signals and discards could illegally mislead the defenders. (Law 73F2)

 

3 E 4 A player may use only information he has received from legitimate sources, such as calls, plays, opponents’ convention cards, their answers to questions and their mannerisms. A player may not use information gained from his partner’s explanation, uncertainty, tempo or mannerisms. (Law 73B)

 

3 E 5 Perhaps an example would help. A player opens 1♣ which is not alerted, and the next player, before passing, asks the meaning of the 1♣, or even worse says “Is that natural?”. If 3NT is reached, and the questioner’s partner leads a Club from two or three small cards the questioner must expect that the TD will not allow the result to stand, but will adjust it.

 

What reason has this player to ask? The questioner knows it is a natural bid because it was not alerted. Experience shows the questioner often happens to have several Clubs.

 

Players sometimes say “I always ask whether I intend to bid or not”. This is not

recommended.

[uday]

In the original example, tho, OP said

 

(3) Alerted; explained as forcing with a one-suited hand

 

In acbl-land, he doesn't get to explain until asked. So in ACBL-land, what actually happens is:

 

(3) Alerted

 

and no one knows why the bid was alerted.

 

For all fourth hand knows, it means "P, I guarantee that we will make 1NXX even if you have psyched" and this might be relevant no matter what he has.

 

4th hand is in an awkward position regardless of whether he asks or not. Even if he makes a practice of always asking, there is no reason to assume that *these* opponents know that this is his practice, and they may be misled by his asking into assuming he has an interest in the response.

 

The Bridge World has been discussing related issues lately.

 

I personally take a dim view of people basing actions on opps Qs when they play the very methods that force the opps to ask Qs in order to protect themselves, but whatever B)

[Halo]

The argument that you give UI by not asking seems false. It's like saying you give UI by passing.

[gnasher]

Like I said, if you asked every time there was an alert, there would be no worry about the information. But that doesn't happen does it?

Yes, of course it happens. I routinely ask about any alerted bid, at least on on the first two or three rounds of the auction. I do this partly to protect my partner from receiving unauthorised information, partly to avoid giving the opponents information, and partly because I like to know what's going on.

 

Regardless of my hand, it wouldn't occur to me to call over this redouble without first finding out what it means.

[gnasher]

The argument that you give UI by not asking seems false. It's like saying you give UI by passing.

This would be true if you never ask the meaning of the redouble and then pass.

 

If, on the other hand, you sometimes ask the meaning and then pass, but sometimes pass without asking, and this variation is dependent on the contents of your hand, then the act of asking or not asking conveys UI.

[gnasher]

Players sometimes say “I always ask whether I intend to bid or not”. This is not

recommended.

Fortunately this is merely a recommendation, and does not carry the force of law or regulation. It can therefore safely be ignored.