Stupid Bid

[JLOL]

2N p 3C p

3H X 4H

 

What is going on? What's 4H?

[Phil]

This auction reminds of my all-time favorite MSC hand of a few years back.

 

Discounting momentary lapses of reason from CHO, what makes sense?

 

The only thing that seems to fit is a 4-0-(54) that is slammish. 4N should be regressive, and everything else should confirm that we don't have a lot of wastage.

 

So its a form of a Bluhmer.

[kenrexford]

Well, the double might not be penalty. That would often be equally stupid. So, presumably the person asked what the double showed, and Advancer either explained it or shrugged his shoulders, after either of which 4♥ seemed like the right call, because Responder has a hand not wanting to punish one or more possible contracts and a fear of the opponets finding a good save.

[Winstonm]

2N p 3C p

3H X 4H

 

What is going on? What's 4H?

Exclusion Smolen. 5044

[JLOL]

2N p 3C p

3H X 4H

 

What is going on? What's 4H?

Exclusion Smolen. 5044

LOL

 

Why would one start with stayman with 5044?

[jdonn]

2N p 3C p

3H X 4H

 

What is going on? What's 4H?

Exclusion Smolen. 5044

LOL

 

Why would one start with stayman with 5044?

Don't ask han what he would do over 1NT with xxxxx - AKQx Kxxx...

[cherdanno]

To get back to the original question - I really don't know. If the double is takeout, then responder could be 4=6 in the majors (obviously with only a 4-4 fit he would go hunting the opponents). Or he could be 4=0=5-4, making a pre-SOS cuebid anticipating his LHO's penalty pass -- but that would give his LHO about 8 hearts. Then again, with the 4=6 hand he could first try and see whether his LHO may pass the double out - how do we know he knows the double is takeout, after all, and it would also avoid misunderstandings.

If the double shows hearts, the 4=0=5-4 hand seems like the only explanation. I don't see why it has to be slammish though.

[kenrexford]

I suppose it might be a good idea to know if 3♣ is MP Stayman or Puppet.

 

It's also a good idea to know what the colors are.

[Winstonm]

2N p 3C p

3H X 4H

 

What is going on? What's 4H?

Exclusion Smolen. 5044

LOL

 

Why would one start with stayman with 5044?

Without knowing the system I assume 3C is simple Stayman - I then draw the conclusion that 4H cannot be hearts.

 

Exclusion Smolen is one possibility - unlikely though.

Another possible hand might also be club game force/slam try with short hearts: Axx, x, Kxx, KJ10xxx? But this would depend on the meaning of the sequence 2N-3C-3any-4C. If that is a club force, then 4H may be the same hand with short hearts?

[helene_t]

This happens often. Most of the time, responder had a minor black-out, or didn't notice the double.

[Deevan]

Assuming partner did hear the double (else, it would not be a problem! More like a "cow flew by" scenario) and bid 4H what could it mean?

 

Also, we have to assume that the double was not showing some hearts! So, a likely 2 suited takeout!

 

Does partner have 4 6 1 2 or more distributional hand with not too many HCPs?

[mike777]

2N p 3C p

3H X 4H

 

What is going on? What's 4H?

As a nonexpert I guess this is a trick question....I assume 4h =hearts.

 

I note the vul and game is not given. I note no alerts so far.

[JLOL]

Yeah I was 40(54) 8 or 9 count. Partner didn't figure out what I was doing. I should not have done this. It just seemed so pretty.

[kenrexford]

Yeah I was 40(54) 8 or 9 count. Partner didn't figure out what I was doing. I should not have done this. It just seemed so pretty.

Did you ask what the double meant? I think if you find out that it is penalty, your bid is clearer. Partner is not supposed to take inference from anything that is not legitimate, but he's goin to have more doubts about your bid if you did not ask what the double shows, at least if he has doubts himself as to what the double shows. If he asks now, that tells him how he should ethically interpret your bid, but he knows that asking questions now doesn't tell him what your bid actually means. And, the ethical problem is not obvious.

[Winstonm]

Yeah I was 40(54) 8 or 9 count. Partner didn't figure out what I was doing. I should not have done this. It just seemed so pretty.

I think it was pretty well thought out - the only trouble I have with it is that 4H seems to suggest an equality of choices between the minors, hence 4/4. That's what led me to say Exclusion Smolen, 5044.

 

At least I got the idea right that a 4-card minor would have a fit.

[hanp]

Yeah I was 40(54) 8 or 9 count. Partner didn't figure out what I was doing. I should not have done this. It just seemed so pretty.

Did you ask what the double meant? I think if you find out that it is penalty, your bid is clearer. Partner is not supposed to take inference from anything that is not legitimate, but he's goin to have more doubts about your bid if you did not ask what the double shows, at least if he has doubts himself as to what the double shows. If he asks now, that tells him how he should ethically interpret your bid, but he knows that asking questions now doesn't tell him what your bid actually means. And, the ethical problem is not obvious.

I think this is obviously unethical. I would call it CHEATING.

[helene_t]

Yes, it is unethical.

 

I am sometimes tempted to ask on behalf on partner when I am playing with an inexperienced p to whom it might not occur that a call means something else than s/he assumes, I don't think I have done it though. Certainly not acceptable in a serious game.

[aguahombre]

Yeah I was 40(54) 8 or 9 count. Partner didn't figure out what I was doing. I should not have done this. It just seemed so pretty.

Did you ask what the double meant? I think if you find out that it is penalty, your bid is clearer. Partner is not supposed to take inference from anything that is not legitimate, but he's goin to have more doubts about your bid if you did not ask what the double shows, at least if he has doubts himself as to what the double shows. If he asks now, that tells him how he should ethically interpret your bid, but he knows that asking questions now doesn't tell him what your bid actually means. And, the ethical problem is not obvious.

I think this is obviously unethical. I would call it CHEATING.

So Hanp, we are fixed. If either of us asks about the double, we are causing ethical problems or cheating. And, if neither of us asks we are causing ethical problems or cheating AND possibly headed for disaster. Therefore we cannot bid the 4-6 major suit (with general weakness) hand now, but must wait until the opponents show their minor suit fit at some level and then bid. I don't like the extra level this gives them.

[jdonn]

So Hanp, we are fixed.  If either of us asks about the double, we are causing ethical problems or cheating. And, if neither of us asks we are causing ethical problems or cheating AND possibly headed for disaster.

If you ask about the double purely because you hope partner will draw an inference about you asking or not asking, THAT is cheating. If you ask about the double because you need to know what it means, that is bridge.

[kenrexford]

I think people are misunderstanding the ethical problem.

 

The double, IMO, is not obvious as to meaning. Whereas it might be penalty, that seems odd, as auctions rare stop at 3♥, especially if you have a penalty double of 3♥. If you have a penalty double of 3♥, in other words, the auction was not stopping at 3♥, and the double did nothing for your side except showing Declarer what you have. Hence, the double, as penalty, would seem rather silly.

 

Thus, it seems that the double should be takeout. I would have guessed that the double showed 4♠/6minor, or something like that. I think that makes way more sense than penalty.

 

Unless Justin asked, his bid assumes penalty, IMO, which I think to be anti-logic (even if correct on this hand). Even is my position is not reasonable as to default, certainly there must be at least room for two takes on the double. If so, then any bid by Responder should follow asking.

 

After asking, which is, as Josh put it, not cheating, but bridge, then Opener has no problem, because Responder has merely asked for a meaning because the meaning is necessary to define his bid. That is no more cheating than any question ever asked about system of the opponents could be called cheating.

 

However, there is a possible ethics problems. IMO, it is problematic to make a call without asking when two possible meanings for the opposition action yield two different possible meanings for your calls. The person not asking is just being dense, usually, or lazy. But, the partner now faces the problem of whether he assumes that partner has the meaning that is usual even if the actual meaning is unusual. In practice, there is no resolution, as a call in these circumstances actually has no meaning. Opener ends up caught in a loop he cannot emerge from.

 

Thus, when I asked if Justin inquired, I believe my question was proper. In fact, it is as necessary as asking the range of a 1NT opening to decide whether your are playing Landy or Cappelletti, for instance. I'd even say that your "goal" of having partner know what your bids mean is entirely appropriate, not cheating. For, you need to know what their bids mean to understand what your bids mean. And, you want to know what your bids mean to enable partner to also know what your bids mean. That's bridge.

 

Now, if you already know what their bids mean, because you looked at their convention card and it said "Doubles of Responses to Stayman after 2NT Openings are Penalty," then asking the question again just to catch partner's attention would be another thing altogether.

[aguahombre]

So Hanp, we are fixed.  If either of us asks about the double, we are causing ethical problems or cheating. And, if neither of us asks we are causing ethical problems or cheating AND possibly headed for disaster.

If you ask about the double purely because you hope partner will draw an inference about you asking or not asking, THAT is cheating. If you ask about the double because you need to know what it means, that is bridge.

I understand. But responder can look at his/her hand and know what the double means. So he/she probably does not need to ask. If he does ask, the implication is, therefore, that he is clearing up for partner that he knows. And this is improper.

 

The notrump bidder, then must ask, so he can have the same information as his partner already had. That seems the only way to be ethically correct, but is tough for both players to have to get right, in reasonable tempo.

[kenrexford]

Simple question, to illustrate my point.

 

LHO opens 2♦, alerted. Partner bids 2♠ without asking any questions. 2♠ over Flannery or Weak Twos or Mini-Roman is always natural in your system.

 

However, when you ask for a definition of the call, RHO explains that 2♦ shows an intermediate hand with 5+ spades and 4+ diamonds.

 

Don't you have to treat partner's 2♠ as Michaels, which would be your default in sequences like this? Won't you feel obligated to blast 4♥ with a hand where blasting 4♥ seems obvious opposite Michaels but insane in this sequence?

 

So, who made the ethical blunder?

 

My position would be that the 2♠ call was not strictly unethical, but it creates an ethical problem without resolution, and that this person should have asked for the meaning of 2♦ before bidding.

 

Surely, however, asking for the eaning of the 2♦ bid cannot be construed as unethical just because you want partner to know what your bids mean, as you always want partner to know what your bids mean as an intended collateral benefit of knowing yourself what your bids mean. Asking while seeing the definition on the CC, however, is a problem, probably. In that situation, I bid per the card and then trust partner to act ethically. Partner may be frightened, but my partners treat my call as what it should mean after a definition opf the opponents' bid is provided.

[kenrexford]

But responder can look at his/her hand and know what the double means. So he/she probably does not need to ask. If he does ask, the implication is, therefore, that he is clearing up for partner that he knows. And this is improper.

I think this is dead wrong. Here's why, using your logic.

 

If you always ask, partner can take no inference.

 

If you sometimes ask, partner will be able to infer that:

 

1. If you ask, then you have a hand pattern that makes deciphering the meaning of this unknown call difficult.

2. If you don't ask, then you have a hand pattern that makes deciphering the meaning of this unknown call easy.

 

In the actual situation, think of the real inferences -- not asking suggests that Responder has a stiff or void in hearts, as he actually has, or long hearts (maybe 5♥/4♠?). Asking implies 2-4 hearts and uncertainty.

[jdonn]

Ken

 

- For all you know partner looked at their convention card, or has played this pair before.

- Partner should ask before acting over an alerted bid if he has no idea what it means.

- You committed the ethical blunder of basing your action on whether partner has asked what the bid means.

- Your key misstatement is "Surely, however, asking for the eaning of the 2♦ bid cannot be construed as unethical just because you want partner to know what your bids mean, as you always want partner to know what your bids mean as an intended collateral benefit of knowing yourself what your bids mean." You don't ask so partner will know what your bid means, you ask so YOU will know what your bid means.

[jdonn]

So Hanp, we are fixed.  If either of us asks about the double, we are causing ethical problems or cheating. And, if neither of us asks we are causing ethical problems or cheating AND possibly headed for disaster.

If you ask about the double purely because you hope partner will draw an inference about you asking or not asking, THAT is cheating. If you ask about the double because you need to know what it means, that is bridge.

I understand. But responder can look at his/her hand and know what the double means. So he/she probably does not need to ask. If he does ask, the implication is, therefore, that he is clearing up for partner that he knows. And this is improper.

 

The notrump bidder, then must ask, so he can have the same information as his partner already had. That seems the only way to be ethically correct, but is tough for both players to have to get right, in reasonable tempo.

I think every statement in your post was incorrect, except perhaps "I understand".