Stupid Bid

[Phil]

Ken, might it be possible that the auction is ending at 3♥? It's not forcing by any means. It's not at all like:

 

1♠ - pass - 2♣ - pass

3♣ - pass - 3♠ - ?

 

Where 3♠ is forcing and we have a serious surprise in the trump suit and can beat any four level contract (and 3N), but we might as well pass and collect our extra 200 or 300.

 

Ergo, you can't take any inference about the nature of the double of 3♥ other than it being penalty.

 

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

 

Effective immediately, I propose a new sub-group of threads. Below "Advanced and Expert bridge", we'll put:

 

"Rexford Bridge"

 

;)

[hanp]

It is very simple.

 

If you ask what the double is because you want to know for your bid then that is perfectly legal of course.

 

If you ask to let partner know that you have asked, that is cheating.

 

Of course with screens you can ask about the double without partner noticing.

[aguahombre]

Ken, you are absolutely right. To always ask provides no inference to partner. ---except for one thing. there has been no alert. And do you always ask the meaning of non-alerted calls? If so, great --never a problem. I cannot imagine anyone who always asks. It is more likely that partner, not asking, regardless of what he holds, cannot picture his rho doubling here with hearts --just to remind himself that he has them.

 

Therefore 4H would be longer hearts, weaker hand. Redouble would be content with hearts but willing to double them, and pass would be all other hands that would like to punish them. This leaves new suit bids to have the same meaning they would have had without the silly double.

[kenrexford]

Hanp: That's what I said. We agree.

 

Phil: The question is not whether 3♥ is forcing. The question is whether, in the long run, you would rather double for penalty or double for takeout. My thought is that a double for takeout seems wildly more likely, because you rarely have an auction die at 3♥ when you have a heart stack. Why? Well, if you are looking at KJ10xx in hearts, and Opener has four hearts, then Responder probably doesn't have four hearts. Ergo, he probably just bid 3♣ because he has 5+ HCP abnd four spades. So, you'll double, he'll laugh and bid 3NT, and your hand will now be on the table for Declarer.

 

Josh: I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I repeatedly said that you do not ask what a bid means to draw partner's attention to something you already know. However, the point of bidding is communication. Whenever you ask what an opponents' bid means, for the purpose of knowing what your bids means, you want to know what your bid means to partner, not to yourself. If you look at bidding at somehow a set of opposrtunities to put a proper card on the table according to some set of rules, then you are right. If you look at bidding as communication, then you by definition need to know how partner will interpret your bid. Hence you do need to know what the opponents' bids mean so that partner will know what you are showing. If you think about it, we are saying the same thing.

[kenrexford]

Ken, you are absolutely right. To always ask provides no inference to partner. ---except for one thing. there has been no alert. And do you always ask the meaning of non-alerted calls? If so, great --never a problem. I cannot imagine anyone who always asks.

Not always, but perhaps more than others, purely for ethical reasons. I also find it sometimes necessary to ask in sequences where I have no bid, to avoid sending the message that I have no bid regardless.

[Winstonm]

This hand has already passed the chance to act once before and there is no implied heart fit for opener and responder, so I don't see why we should assume a takeout double.

 

I would think this double to be more in the "informational" category, indicating a very strong heart holding - not strictly penalty but willing to play 3H doubled but anticipating no redouble.

 

I would think a hand such as xxx, AQJ9x, xxx, xx would make the informative double of 3H to help the defense against a subsequent 3N or 4H contract.

[Phil]

Phil: The question is not whether 3♥ is forcing. The question is whether, in the long run, you would rather double for penalty or double for takeout. My thought is that a double for takeout seems wildly more likely, because you rarely have an auction die at 3♥ when you have a heart stack. Why? Well, if you are looking at KJ10xx in hearts, and Opener has four hearts, then Responder probably doesn't have four hearts. Ergo, he probably just bid 3♣ because he has 5+ HCP abnd four spades. So, you'll double, he'll laugh and bid 3NT, and your hand will now be on the table for Declarer.

No, the question of whether or not 3♥ is forcing has everything to do with whether or not our double is penalty or takeout.

 

Earlier you say, "3♥ will be rarely passed". I would suggest that if we are looking at a hand that wants to take a piece out of 3♥, something like:

 

Kx

AQT9x

Axx

Axx

 

that responder is, in fact, about to pass 3♥ and you'll collect 100, 200, 300 instead of 2/5/8.

 

Now, if you instead hold:

 

xx

KJTxx

AKx

xxx

 

where you'd sort of like to double 3♥, you shouldn't, since they are more likely to bid game if you pass, and if you double they might slither into 3N. But this has nothing to do with whether or not your double is better used as takeout, but has everything to do with tactics in the situation at hand.

 

Really, what kind of hand would you want to double as takeout on? You suggested a 4♠ / 6m. Some of these hands with good playing strength could come in directly over 2N.

 

"Takeout" makes even less sense. Why would we suddenly wade in at the 3/4 level when LHO is unlimited? Most of the time when we hold a 4=0=(54) (funny symmetry to the OP's hand btw), pard is looking at a ?=5=?=? yarborough and will just throw up when you double.

[kenrexford]

I think this is getting diverted from the issue. The question of importance for Responder is not whether takeout or penalty makes the most sense, the question is whether takeout or penalty is what the opponent means.

[gnasher]

Strange discussion.

 

If, in the given jurisdiction, a failure to alert makes it clear what that double means, both members of the partnership should already know what it means. If the failure to alert doesn't make the meaning clear, responder will, obviously, ask before deciding what to do. If one of our side doesn't know what the non-alert implies, he asks the meaning of the double; the only information thereby conveyed to his partner is that he doesn't know the alerting rules.

 

If the failure to alert implies that it was for penalties, but it later turns out that it was systemically something else, the director either rewinds the auction or adjusts the score (depending on when the misinformation is discovered).

 

Nobody has to make any assumptions, nobody has to look at their hand to work out what is going on, and nobody has any ethical problems.

[helene_t]

If the failure to alert implies that it was for penalties, but it later turns out that it was systemically something else, the director either rewinds the auction or adjusts the score (depending on when the misinformation is discovered).

I think it's a strong assumption that players know which doubles are alertable. This is not a very common double.

 

Besides, the partnership may very well not have any specific agreement about this double.

[gnasher]

I think it's a strong assumption that players know which doubles are alertable. This is not a very common double.

I did say, in the part that you didn't quote, "If ... a failure to alert makes it clear what that double means."

 

Suppose that it were in England, where a significant proportion of players claim to find the alerting rules too complicated to understand and apply, especially when it comes to doubles (despite the actual simplicity of the rule). Then neither an alert nor a non-alert would make the meaning clear, and a responder with any sense would ask.

 

Besides, the partnership may very well not have any specific agreement about this double.

If a non-alert includes the possibility that the double is undiscussed, a non-alert will not make it clear what the double means, so responder will ask.