Ethical problem

[bluecalm]

It goes: (with opponents being vulnerable)

 

1♦ - 1♠ - pass - 3♠

dbl - 4♠ - passes...

 

In the play opponent is contemplating playing trump suit which is:

 

KJ9xx to ATxx.

He asks about 1♦ opening and you answer that it's 4+.

 

Now the problem:

You also play that 2♦ opening is 18-19 bal with 2NT being 20-21 thus your dbl practically promisses ♠ shortness.

 

Should you volunteer this information ?

[gnasher]

Yes, of course you should. He wants to know what hands open 1♦, so tell him.

[blackshoe]

No, unless the double was not takeout.

 

Out of curiosity, and nothing to do with the thread, what would an unopposed 1♦-1M-2NT show in your system?

 

I cross posted with Andy. We disagree. Why, Andy?

[mikeh]

It goes: (with opponents being vulnerable)

 

1♦ - 1♠ - pass - 3♠

dbl    - 4♠ - passes...

 

In the play opponent is contemplating playing trump suit which is:

 

KJ9xxx to ATxx.

He asks about 1♦ opening and you answer that it's 4+.

 

Now the problem:

You also play that 2♦ opening is 18-19 bal with 2NT being 20-21 thus your dbl practically promisses ♠ shortness.

 

Should you volunteer this information ?

yes and no...how about that...I both disagree and agree with both prior posters :P

 

You should volunteer that 1♦ promises 4+, but add that it will not include balanced hands of 18 or more hcp...

 

You should not volunteer that the double promises or indicates short spades...that is a (simple) deduction that he should glean from bridge logic.

 

Frankly, your opp isn't much of a player if he is thinking of playing the 1♦ bidder for the spade length

[hanp]

As Andy said, of course you should. When the opponents ask you about your 1D opening, they ask you with which hands you open 1D. Then you should go out of your way to give a correct answer to the question, and the fact that you open 2D with balanced 18-19 count greatly affects your 1D openings.

 

Given your post, it is also clear that you knew the answer.

[bluecalm]

Frankly, your opp isn't much of a player if he is thinking of playing the 1♦ bidder for the spade length

 

I mistyped spade suit.

I meant to make it 5-4 so his choice is either play for drop or finesse assuming shortness in opener's hand.

[campboy]

I think it is necessary to say "must be unbalanced if 15+" if asked what the 1♦ opening means, since that is part of your agreement about that call. On the other hand I think it would be inappropriate to make any comment about the double since declarer has not asked about it.

[hanp]

No, just as Mikeh said, you just say it promises 4+ diamonds but can't be 18-19 balanced because you open 2D with that. That's clear and complete information, and the opponents can make their own assumption about your hand. If they ask what the double shows, you can say it's a takeout double.

 

I don't think mikeh disagreed with gnasher btw, gnasher says he would tell what hands he opens 1D with, so would mikeh.

[cherdanno]

"4+ diamonds, 12-14 if balanced"

[jdonn]

Yes this is very easy. From what I can see he didn't ask "how many diamonds did 1♦ promised" he asked about your 1♦ opening. There is much more information about your 1♦ opening than 4+ diamonds.

[nigel_k]

"4+ diamonds, 12-14 if balanced"

That's what I would say as well.

 

Just saying 4+ diamonds is incomplete unless they asked about the length only. But you don't have to mentioned specifically that it must be unbalanced or that it cannot be 18-19 balanced because you would open 2♦. After all it cannot be 15-17 or 20-21 balanced either.

[peachy]

Yes, you should tell them all of your agreements regarding 1D opening. Even if the question had been "how many diamonds in 1D?", the proper thing is to explain the bid in full, something like *4+ diamonds and then give the HCP range*. In your case the HCP range appears to be 12-14. Or more if unblanced

[bluecalm]

I am posting this because I feel that volunteering this information is mandatory but most of my bridge playing friends and most bridge players here for that matter don't ever explain those things.

Their argument is that it's negative interference from other thing and they are not supposed to tell opponents about those as it's part of the game to be able to think about it yourself.

 

I am happy most people here agree that you should go out of your to let opponents know about such things.

[aguahombre]

Yes, you should tell them all of your agreements regarding 1D opening. Even if the question had been "how many diamonds in 1D?", the proper thing is to explain the bid in full, something like *4+ diamonds and then give the HCP range*. In your case the HCP range appears to be 12-14. Or more if unblanced

That. However the opp phrases it, he/she is inquiring about the opening bid. If you have a lot of agreements about it, just explain them.

[gnasher]

Yes, you should tell them all of your agreements regarding 1D opening. Even if the question had been "how many diamonds in 1D?", the proper thing is to explain the bid in full

That's an ACBL regulation, so probably not applicable where Bluecalm plays.

[fromageGB]

I'm ambivalent about this - maybe it is a regulation issue. The double was not alerted so in EBU-land it is for takeout. You are entitled to expect that opponents know such a simple regulation. Nobody in their right mind would make a takeout double to play at the 4 level unless they were short in spades. This is "general bridge knowledge" and another regulation says you don't gratuitously explain things in this domain.

 

So by EBU regulation I would say the explanation given was OK.

 

On the other hand, I believe fuller explanations are in the better spirit of the game.

[cherdanno]

I'm ambivalent about this - maybe it is a regulation issue. The double was not alerted so in EBU-land it is for takeout. You are entitled to expect that opponents know such a simple regulation. Nobody in their right mind would make a takeout double to play at the 4 level unless they were short in spades. This is "general bridge knowledge" and another regulation says you don't gratuitously explain things in this domain.

 

So by EBU regulation I would say the explanation given was OK.

 

On the other hand, I believe fuller explanations are in the better spirit of the game.

Uhm, we are discussing explaining the 1♦ opening. Obviously, no good player would need the additional information to conclude that opener is likely short in spades. On the other hand, if this particular opponent is only able to come to this conclusion if he knows that we can't be 15+ balanced (which is a special partnership agreement between my partner and me), then he is certainly entitled to that information.

Don't give a bridge lesson, just describe your agreement for 1♦.

[gordontd]

It goes: (with opponents being vulnerable)

 

1♦ - 1♠ - pass - 3♠

dbl - 4♠ - passes...

 

In the play opponent is contemplating playing trump suit which is:

 

KJ9xx to ATxx.

He asks about 1♦ opening and you answer that it's 4+.

 

Now the problem:

You also play that 2♦ opening is 18-19 bal with 2NT being 20-21 thus your dbl practically promisses ♠ shortness.

Surely this auction shows that anyway. And, as a consequence, a minimum of four diamonds.

[aguahombre]

Nobody in their right mind would make a takeout double to play at the 4 level unless they were short in spades.  This is "general bridge knowledge" and another regulation says you don't gratuitously explain things in this domain.

 

Although I snipped the part where you agree a full explaination is in the spirit of the game, this paragraph seems strange.

 

The double's meaning is general bridge knowledge, but the question was about your agreements involving the 1♦ opening (at the time your partner opened 1D). If That full explanation happens to clear up what your later actions meant --- whether the later action should have been clear anyways or not --- is not relevent.