adjust?

[campboy]

I would have thought the exact opposite: with a bad hand and long hearts I would bid immediately, while with a good hand in context (whether it contained long hearts or not) I would pass and act later if there were further bidding.

 

That is: if I pass over 1NT redoubled, then (whatever the redouble means) I show preparedness to defend 1NT redoubled; if I bid, then I don't. It bewilders me that some other approach might be considered "standard", but these days I spend much of my life in a state of bewilderment (whether at the bridge table or away from it).

You may well be right that your methods are more standard than mine over a forcing redouble. But so long as each method has a way to show long hearts with game interest and a different way to show long hearts without game interest one could reasonably play either. If redouble was to play, however, the 2♥ bid would definitely show a weak hand.

[bluejak]

No, Tyler, N/S did not fail to investigate game.  They merely did not alert an alertable call, gained from it, and you want to reward them.

I think Tyler was referring to E/W not investigating game.

 

In any case, I think E/W should have reached 4H in spite of the XX, but the poor 2H call destroyed those chances. So -620 NS and +170 EW is a possibility?

 

I can understand not wanting to "reward" NS given the lack of alert. However, EW has not inspired too much confidence in their ability to bid this game, so I see NS point that a claim by EW that they would have reached game seems a bit tenuous.

Of course - and that is exactly the mistake to which I am referring. Tyler and others should stop thinking about E/W: they should think about N/S. A pair have committed an infraction, and there is a Law to cover it. Long posts about whether their opponents were stupid, bent, drunk, silly, venal or whatever are irrelevant to this: first you need to decide whether the pair committing the infraction should receive an adjustment.

 

Once you have decided whether to adjust, and how much, and so forth, then you use Law 12C1B to decide whether to adjust as much or at all for these non-offenders you are worrying about.

 

Of course, in the ACBL, under Law 12C1E you can adjust differently for both sides anyway. Same thing: start by deciding what N/S have done and what adjustment, then worry about E/W.

 

Tyler's post was in response to mine, but it looked at the wrong pair, so was not responsive.

 

:ph34r:

 

Fine: I have no problem with anything for E/W: I am worrying about all the posts who seem to suggest that E/W's efforts mean no adjustment.

 

:)

 

Are you saying that you believe E/W would definitely and certainly have made the same mistake if the redouble had been alerted? If not, adjust for N/S.

[dburn]

Try to bear with me, bluejak - this is, I promise, a serious question.

 

West holds:

 

♠AKQJ1098765432 ♥None ♦None ♣None

 

South, dealer, opens 1♠, alerted by North. West enquires, and discovers that according to the partnership methods, this shows the ace of spades.

 

Convinced, despite repeated examinations of his cards, that his ace of spades must in fact be the ace of clubs, West bids six spades and calls you to the table after making thirteen tricks.

 

It transpired that North's explanation was in error - South's opening bid actually showed the ace of clubs.

 

How would you rule?

 

Again, I stress that this is a serious question. I note what you say above regarding the different scores that might be awarded to a pair giving a misexplanation and a pair affected by that misexplanation. And, to some extent, I agree with what you say - in the actual case, NS -620 and EW +170 seems to me a reasonable ruling.

 

But I am not at all sure that if a player makes a "serious error" following a misexplanation, his opponents should automatically be awarded the worst score they might have obtained had the misexplanation not been given.

[TylerE]

I'm not at all convinced that the XX is even alertable! The ACBL guidelines, which I'm assuming are in play:

 

Passes or redoubles with highly unusual or unexpected meanings require an Alert.

 

Is an XX as a minor-suit runout really "highly unusual or unexpected"?

 

If the call is not alertable, how can N/S have perpetrated an infraction? The absolute most I can see here is sticking N/S with some percentage of -620 if jurisdictionally allowed. I'm NEVER giving E/W any of it.

[bluejak]

Try to bear with me, bluejak - this is, I promise, a serious question.

 

West holds:

 

♠AKQJ1098765432  ♥None  ♦None  ♣None

 

South, dealer, opens 1♠, alerted by North. West enquires, and discovers that according to the partnership methods, this shows the ace of spades.

 

Convinced, despite repeated examinations of his cards, that his ace of spades must in fact be the ace of clubs, West bids six spades and calls you to the table after making thirteen tricks.

 

It transpired that North's explanation was in error - South's opening bid actually showed the ace of clubs.

 

How would you rule?

 

Again, I stress that this is a serious question. I note what you say above regarding the different scores that might be awarded to a pair giving a misexplanation and a pair affected by that misexplanation. And, to some extent, I agree with what you say - in the actual case, NS -620 and EW +170 seems to me a reasonable ruling.

 

But I am not at all sure that if a player makes a "serious error" following a misexplanation, his opponents should automatically be awarded the worst score they might have obtained had the misexplanation not been given.

I would rule that the hand needs redealing. That is a serious answer to your question.

 

I still think that people find it easier to understand rulings with real cases. Made up situations often suffer from not being helpful. In this case I have no idea what you are talking about, which is hardly surprising given the example.

 

As for

But I am not at all sure that if a player makes a "serious error" following a misexplanation, his opponents should automatically be awarded the worst score they might have obtained had the misexplanation not been given.

nor am I - did anyone say that?

 

:ph34r:

 

If the call is not alertable, how can N/S have perpetrated an infraction? The absolute most I can see here is sticking N/S with some percentage of -620 if jurisdictionally allowed. I'm NEVER giving E/W any of it.

How on earth can you adjust for N/S if there is no infraction?

 

But I do not believe that a redouble asking for a minor is usual: it seems alertable to me.

[peachy]

I'm not at all convinced that the XX is even alertable! The ACBL guidelines, which I'm assuming are in play:

 

Passes or redoubles with highly unusual or unexpected meanings require an Alert.

 

Is an XX as a minor-suit runout really "highly unusual or unexpected"?

 

If the call is not alertable, how can N/S have perpetrated an infraction? The absolute most I can see here is sticking N/S with some percentage of -620 if jurisdictionally allowed. I'm NEVER giving E/W any of it.

If it is not alertable (I think it is not, but that is my opinion), then there is NOTHING to discuss or rule. This whole thread is based on the premise that the Rdbl *is* alertable.

[Rodney26]

The redouble has to be ACBL alertable. The standard meaning has to be business. I don't think it is ethical bridge to make the case that everyone plays the redouble as a runout, so it isn't alertable.

 

Non-natural bids in a runout system should be alerted.

[TylerE]

Why does it HAVE to be business? Around here most of the export partnerships play that PASS is the strong big (or at least has strong options), while an immediate RDBL is the signal to find a suit at the two level.

[Rodney26]

Why does it HAVE to be business? Around here most of the export partnerships play that PASS is the strong big (or at least has strong options), while an immediate RDBL is the signal to find a suit at the two level.

I don't think what most experts play is relevant. 99.9% of all partnerships play transfers, but they are still announcable. I think based on the philosophy of the ACBL alert chart, xx is by default business. There is still a game bonus and all that. Plus, not all opponents are experts.

 

We play xx as clubs & a higher suit. Pass forces redouble. We alert both calls and certainly have never heard otherwise. Agreements like this clearly need to be alerted and disclosed IMO.

 

If advancer had xxx xxxx Qxxxx x and intervenor had doubled on some unbalanced moose like AJTx KQx A KQJTx, shouldn't advancer know that the bid on his right is the minors and not business? I'd be a little disappointed in any bridge player that said otherwise based on the fact that the alert chart isn't specific on this particular sequence.

[peachy]

The redouble has to be ACBL alertable. The standard meaning has to be business. I don't think it is ethical bridge to make the case that everyone plays the redouble as a runout, so it isn't alertable.

 

Non-natural bids in a runout system should be alerted.

What should be alerted is what the regulation says should be alerted. IMO, a runout methods by using Rdbl after 1NT opening is doubled, is not unusual or unexpected, certainly not highly unusual. Also, the Alert Regulations are not defining what is or is not "standard". This is what the regulation says, oft repeated in this thread:

 

PART IV: DOUBLES, REDOUBLES AND PASSES

Except for those doubles with highly unusual or unexpected meanings, doubles do not require an Alert.

[shyams]

Try to bear with me, bluejak - this is, I promise, a serious question.

 

West holds:

 

♠AKQJ1098765432  ♥None  ♦None  ♣None

 

South, dealer, opens 1♠, alerted by North. West enquires, and discovers that according to the partnership methods, this shows the ace of spades.

 

Convinced, despite repeated examinations of his cards, that his ace of spades must in fact be the ace of clubs, West bids six spades and calls you to the table after making thirteen tricks.

 

It transpired that North's explanation was in error - South's opening bid actually showed the ace of clubs.

 

How would you rule?

 

Again, I stress that this is a serious question. I note what you say above regarding the different scores that might be awarded to a pair giving a misexplanation and a pair affected by that misexplanation. And, to some extent, I agree with what you say - in the actual case, NS -620 and EW +170 seems to me a reasonable ruling.

 

But I am not at all sure that if a player makes a "serious error" following a misexplanation, his opponents should automatically be awarded the worst score they might have obtained had the misexplanation not been given.

I would rule that the hand needs redealing. That is a serious answer to your question.

I think this is an inaccurate conclusion -- you assume that the hands were not properly dealt. At the risk of guessing dburn's intention, I'd claim that his post implicitly assumed that hands were properly dealt.

 

A simple exercise in probability: Assuming no dealing error, which hand do you think is more probable as a 13-card dealt hand? Is it: ♠AKQJ1098765432 ♥None ♦None ♣None OR this: ♠A6532 ♥KQ74 ♦96 ♣82

[RMB1]

..., a serious question.

 

West holds:

 

♠AKQJ1098765432  ♥None  ♦None  ♣None

 

South, dealer, opens 1♠, alerted by North. West enquires, and discovers that according to the partnership methods, this shows the ace of spades.

 

Convinced, despite repeated examinations of his cards, that his ace of spades must in fact be the ace of clubs, West bids six spades and calls you to the table after making thirteen tricks.

 

It transpired that North's explanation was in error - South's opening bid actually showed the ace of clubs.

 

How would you rule?

Treating this as a serious question about damage from misinformation, not a question about how to deal with thirteen card suits ...

 

Following Law 12B: I rule no damage to the non-offending side, no advantage gained by the offending side through its infraction; so no adjustment.

[blackshoe]

This is what the regulation says, oft repeated in this thread:

 

PART IV: DOUBLES, REDOUBLES AND PASSES

Except for those doubles with highly unusual or unexpected meanings, doubles do not require an Alert.

That's all very well, but double ≠ redouble. That said, of course, the regulation later says

Passes or redoubles with highly unusual or unexpected meanings require an Alert.

Elsewhere, the regulation says

This procedure uses the admittedly "fuzzy" terminology of "highly unusual and unexpected" as the best practical solution to simplifying the Alert Procedure. "Highly unusual and unexpected" should be determined in light of historical usage rather than local geographical usage. To ensure full disclosure, however, at the end of the auction and before the opening lead declarers are encouraged to volunteer to explain the auction (including available inferences).

Frankly I have no idea what "historical usage" is in this particular case. The two examples of redoubles requiring an alert are no help — they're irrelevant to this case. I note that "historical usage" in places where the weak NT is common (e.g., England) may well be different from "historical usage" in the US. I don't know if the regulators want that taken into account or not.

 

I note that while there is a difference between "highly unusual or unexpected" and "highly unusual and unexpected", the regulation claims, in the paragraph I quoted second above, to use the latter, while all other uses in the regulation are the former.

 

I would say, based on what people around here do and do not do, that while there are some few who play weak NTs, there are fewer who have actually discussed runout sequences after interference. There are fewer still, IME, who do not play weak NT, but have discussed what to do over runouts. So while redouble to start a runout may not, strictly speaking, be either highly unusual or unexpected in terms of historical usage, it's certainly both of those here.

 

There's also the fact that many players don't consider the differences between weak NT and strong NT when discussing their bidding agreements. Karen Walker, in an ACBL Bulletin article a few years ago, said of the SOS redouble "Note that after partner opens 1NT, your redouble is SOS only if you’re in the passout seat (your LHO has doubled). If partner opens 1NT and your RHO doubles, a redouble should be for “business”, showing invitational-or-better values." She didn't say whether she was talking about weak NT or strong NT. Should we assume that because she's in North America, she's talking about strong NTs only? Or should we assume that she's talking about either weak or strong NTs? Barbara Seagram and David Bird, in 25 More Conventions You Should Know say that the Redouble in 1NT-(X)-XX should be business, not SOS. Again, they don't specify what the range of 1NT is. All in all, these seem to me strong indicators that an SOS redouble in this position should be alerted in the ACBL, even if 99% of our English readers will think that's silly. :o :wacko:

[dburn]

..., a serious question.

 

West holds:

 

♠AKQJ1098765432  ♥None  ♦None  ♣None

 

South, dealer, opens 1♠, alerted by North. West enquires, and discovers that according to the partnership methods, this shows the ace of spades.

 

Convinced, despite repeated examinations of his cards, that his ace of spades must in fact be the ace of clubs, West bids six spades and calls you to the table after making thirteen tricks.

 

It transpired that North's explanation was in error - South's opening bid actually showed the ace of clubs.

 

How would you rule?

Treating this as a serious question about damage from misinformation, not a question about how to deal with thirteen card suits ...

 

Following Law 12B: I rule no damage to the non-offending side, no advantage gained by the offending side through its infraction; so no adjustment.

Thank you, Robin - that is most... er, what's that new word bluejak has learned? Ah, yes... responsive.

 

Now, in the actual case West had a nine count, and his partner doubled a 1NT opening, and he signed off. The question bluejak asks is: "might West have done something else if his opponents had done something else as far as alerting and explaining was concerned?" If so, bluejak wants us to adjust not necessarily East-West's score, but (necessarily) North-South's score.

 

In the example I gave (which, I freely concede, is not take from actual play) West has done something ridiculous, but may claim to have done it because his opponents' explanations caused him to doubt the evidence of his own eyes. But there comes a point at which we say (as Robin says above) that the cause of the damage to East-West was entirely their own stupidity, and that there is no reason to suppose that they would have been any less stupid had the opponents not committed an infraction.

 

In the actual case, there is no reason to suppose that a West who ridiculously signed off after South redoubled would not, equally ridiculously, have signed off after South passed (or after North gave a correct explanation of the redouble). That is, there is no reason to adjust the score for either pair in the actual case, any more than in my example case. Of course, one may penalize North-South for a breach of the alerting regulations, but that is not the same as adjusting their score to minus 620.

 

Nonetheless, there are circumstances in which such an adjustment would be reasonable. If East-West were in the habit of doubling 1NT with 13 points or so; or if West were a clearly inexperienced player overawed by an eminent South into doubting East's double rather than South's redouble or North's opening bid; then one might say that the cause of damage was not entirely West's stupidity.

 

But bluejak seems to assume that North-South should not be allowed to "get away" without a score adjustment, on the basis that West "might" have acted differently in different circumstances. He might, but that is not the only consideration.

[Fluffy]

if dealer had psyched 1NT it might be reasonable for south to bid just 2♥ to lure redoubler into doubling a partscore since he is in a forcing pass situation. Passing wont work as opener is gonna run. Obviously not the case but anything is possible :wacko:

[Rodney26]

The redouble has to be ACBL alertable. The standard meaning has to be business. I don't think it is ethical bridge to make the case that everyone plays the redouble as a runout, so it isn't alertable.

 

Non-natural bids in a runout system should be alerted.

What should be alerted is what the regulation says should be alerted. IMO, a runout methods by using Rdbl after 1NT opening is doubled, is not unusual or unexpected, certainly not highly unusual. Also, the Alert Regulations are not defining what is or is not "standard". This is what the regulation says, oft repeated in this thread:

 

PART IV: DOUBLES, REDOUBLES AND PASSES

Except for those doubles with highly unusual or unexpected meanings, doubles do not require an Alert.

I completely disagree. Using xx as part of a runout must be alerted and disclosed. It is absolutely highly unusual and unexpected that this bid would mean the minors. How on earth is an opponent supposed to know that?

[TylerE]

If I felt like being a smart-ass, I'd say that THIS opponent should know that there are only 40 HCP is the deck.

[RMB1]

If dealer had psyched 1NT it might be reasonable for south to bid just 2♥ to lure redoubler into doubling a partscore since he is in a forcing pass situation. ...

If West said he bid 2♥ because XX was strong/to play, and he thought/gambled/hoped that 2♥ would be forcing on the opponents. Then I would rule that (a) West had been damaged and (b) the 2♥ was not a serious error (although I might have to rule it was "gambling"). [Assuming there had been a failure to alert.]

Edited May 24, 2010 by RMB1

[peachy]

PART IV: DOUBLES, REDOUBLES AND PASSES

Except for those doubles with highly unusual or unexpected meanings, doubles do not require an Alert.

I completely disagree. Using xx as part of a runout must be alerted and disclosed. It is absolutely highly unusual and unexpected that this bid would mean the minors. How on earth is an opponent supposed to know that?

By asking.

 

I don't intend to endlessly defend my opinion. I came to it by reading the regulation and coming to a different conclusion than you. If a definitive answer is needed [for example, to judge whether adjustment in the originally posted case is right] then in ACBL that answer would be from ACBL.

[campboy]

People keep talking about whether West (who has admittedly done something very bizarre) might have acted differently with different information, but there is also the issue of whether East, who is probably aware that his partner is liable to do bizarre things, would act differently with correct information. East may well have taken into account the possibility of West having a 9-count had he realised that the redouble was not natural.

[kevperk]

The ACBL alert regulation is admittedly not as clear-cut as "alert artificial bids and don't alert natural bids", but the exceptions to this are a much shorter list than people seem to believe. For doubles, the penalty and simple takeout meaning are generally the nonalertable meaning. For redoubles, I would think the penalty meaning would be nonalertable. I'm not sure about redouble for takeout. But any other meaning would seem to me to be artificial and clearly be alertable.

[pran]

A simple exercise in probability: Assuming no dealing error, which hand do you think is more probable as a 13-card dealt hand? Is it: ♠AKQJ1098765432  ♥None  ♦None  ♣None OR this:  ♠A6532  ♥KQ74  ♦96  ♣82

Since nobody seems to have bothered answering: The two hands have exactly the same probability!

[peachy]

I'm not sure about redouble for takeout. But any other meaning would seem to me to be artificial and clearly be alertable.

I keep beating a dead horse and will stop after this.

 

the ACBL alert regulation on doubles and redoubles is not based on and does not even discuss some meaning being "natural" or "standard" or "artificial" or "conventional".

 

Again, the alertability of DBL or RDBL depends on the answer to the question: Is it specifically defined as alertable? When it is not, then: Is it highly unusual or unexpected?

[blackshoe]

Again, the alertability of DBL or RDBL depends on the answer to the question: Is it specifically defined as alertable? When it is not, then: Is it highly unusual or unexpected?

Peachy is right about this, although I disagree with his conclusion about the particular redouble we're discussing.

[campboy]

A simple exercise in probability: Assuming no dealing error, which hand do you think is more probable as a 13-card dealt hand? Is it: ♠AKQJ1098765432  ♥None  ♦None  ♣None OR this:  ♠A6532  ♥KQ74  ♦96  ♣82

Since nobody seems to have bothered answering: The two hands have exactly the same probability!

Well, duh. Now riddle me this: assuming there was a dealing infraction of some sort, which of those hands is more likely? What is the implication of your answer in a Bayesian context?