Forced redouble shenanigans

[Cyberyeti]

This is a hypothetical question but cobbled together from real events.

 

It relates to 2 pairs games several months apart with the same 4 (decent experienced) players at the table, the same auction, vulnerability (all) and questions asked.

 

S opens 1N weak

W doubles for penalties

N passes, alerted

E asks about the redouble, confirms it's 100% forcing and passes

S sees E wants to be sure he's getting another bid and passes

 

The first time E has a flat 0 count, S chalks up +380, EW could have rescued into 2 of a suit

 

The second time E has a flat 7 count (and no bridge reason to ask about the redouble) and they take 800 with NS able to play in 2 of a suit more cheaply.

 

S calls in the TD second time and asks about the ethics of E's question. E counters that NS have a CPU that the redouble isn't really forcing so the description is misleading.

 

Now what ?

[BunnyGo]

This is a hypothetical question but cobbled together from real events.

 

It relates to 2 pairs games several months apart with the same 4 (decent experienced) players at the table, the same auction, vulnerability (all) and questions asked.

 

S opens 1N weak

W doubles for penalties

N passes, alerted

E asks about the redouble, confirms it's 100% forcing and passes

S sees E wants to be sure he's getting another bid and passes

 

The first time E has a flat 0 count, S chalks up +380, EW could have rescued into 2 of a suit

 

The second time E has a flat 7 count (and no bridge reason to ask about the redouble) and they take 800 with NS able to play in 2 of a suit more cheaply.

 

S calls in the TD second time and asks about the ethics of E's question. E counters that NS have a CPU that the redouble isn't really forcing so the description is misleading.

 

Now what ?

 

If East asks about all such alerts, then there does not need to be a bridge reason for him to ask. In fact, I do not think there ever needs to be a bridge reason to ask.

 

As for East's complaint that the description is misleading, I'm more sympathetic that the description is misleading, but it seems to me that one is always allowed to pass a forcing bid.

[gnasher]

Wanting to know the meaning of the opponents' auction is a bridge reason.

 

For some reason there is a widespread belief in England that you shouldn't ask questions unless you're thinking of acting. It's complete cobblers.

 

These approaches are all legal:

- Always ask about a given category of bid (eg all alerted bids, or all alerted bids early in the auction, or all alerted bids in competition)

- Ask whenever the auction is one where it's quite likely that one would want to know (as in this case).

- Ask if you need to know now, or you know you're going to need to know the meaning later (as in this case).

- Ask if you need to know now, and also frequently and randomly on other occasions.

[ahydra]

Do you mean "East asks about the pass" (that forces a redouble)?

 

I think East is allowed to ask about whatever he wants. Only West is not allowed to take advantage of the UI such created. South can do as he pleases - but the Laws say "take inferences from opps' actions at your own risk", so no redress for South when he goes for 800.

 

The CPU thing is not applicable here because, again, only North is not allowed to take advantage of a CPU. Here North didn't get a chance to do so, and so no redress for EW when they go for 380. (Unless, somehow, it could be proven NS always leave in the forcing pass when playing against this particular EW...)

 

ahydra

[brian_m]

Wanting to know the meaning of the opponents' auction is a bridge reason.

 

For some reason there is a widespread belief in England that you shouldn't ask questions unless you're thinking of acting. It's complete cobblers.

 

<snip>

 

 

'Some reason' is most likely because the English Bridge Union used to specifically advise that in what was then the Yellow Book. Yes, I'm going back a long way, since I emigrated almost 15 years ago. Once you set something like that in force, though, it's always difficult to reverse it. The Yellow Book used to advise that you should delay asking questions until the end of the auction or after the face-down lead, as appropriate, unless you had a "demonstrable bridge reason" for asking, and warned that saying you always asked wasn't sufficient to escape from a claim that your question had created unauthorised information for your partner.

[RMB1]

'Some reason' is most likely because the English Bridge Union used to specifically advise that in what was then the Yellow Book. Yes, I'm going back a long way, since I emigrated almost 15 years ago. Once you set something like that in force, though, it's always difficult to reverse it.

 

The advice remains in the Orange Book, the successor to the Yellow Book, although it was been toned down a bit.

[Cyberyeti]

Wanting to know the meaning of the opponents' auction is a bridge reason.

 

For some reason there is a widespread belief in England that you shouldn't ask questions unless you're thinking of acting. It's complete cobblers.

 

These approaches are all legal:

- Always ask about a given category of bid (eg all alerted bids, or all alerted bids early in the auction, or all alerted bids in competition)

- Ask whenever the auction is one where it's quite likely that one would want to know (as in this case).

- Ask if you need to know now, or you know you're going to need to know the meaning later (as in this case).

- Ask if you need to know now, and also frequently and randomly on other occasions.

I'm interested in this, since there is (in England) really only one thing this pass ever means when alerted so IMO points 2 and 3 don't apply. Assume he doesn't adopt the first approach or this question would not be relevant.

[ggwhiz]

This one really loses me.

 

There was an alert. I'm not supposed to ask unless it transmits UI to my pard or a rock solid inference to the opps??

 

I'm supposed to know what's up when they have previousy departed from the agreement???

 

For all I know I'm about to get a different explanation and I'm entitled to be curious under the circumstances to protect myself next year.

[blackshoe]

I guess things are different in England. Where I'm from, an alert means no more and no less than "there is something about our auction about which you may wish to ask". Any idea that an alert shows (or denies) any particular type of hand is no more than a guess.

[brian_m]

This one really loses me.

 

There was an alert. I'm not supposed to ask unless it transmits UI to my pard or a rock solid inference to the opps??

 

I'm supposed to know what's up when they have previousy departed from the agreement???

 

For all I know I'm about to get a different explanation and I'm entitled to be curious under the circumstances to protect myself next year.

 

 

I'm not defending the idea, but the EBU's (original?) advice was that if you weren't contemplating any action other than a pass, you should defer your questions until the end of the auction or after the face-down lead, as appropriate. IMO, you should have the choice of 1) normal alerts (whatever that means in your location), 2) asking your opps not to alert at all, and 3) asking them to automatically explain everything.

[gnasher]

These are the relevant parts of the EBU regulations:

3E1: A player has the right to ask questions at his turn, but should be aware that exercising this right has consequences. If a player shows unusual interest in one or more calls of the auction, then this 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 16B, 73C). Asking about a call of 3NT or below which has not been alerted may cause more problems than asking about an alerted call, as may asking repeated or leading questions. Asking about alerted calls in a (potentially) competitive auction is less likely to have adverse consequences, although it is not risk free. If, therefore, at a player’s turn to call, he does not need to have a call explained, it may be 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.

...

3E4: ...Players sometimes say “I always ask whether I intend to bid or not”. This is not recommended.

3E5: 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 73F)

[Cyberyeti]

Thanks Gnasher, 3E5 is really what I was getting at.

 

Is there a difference between:

 

N passes alerted by S

E asks

S says forcing to redouble

E passes

 

and

 

N passes alerted by S

E asks

S says forcing to redouble

E says "so it's absolutely 100% forcing"

S says yes

E passes

 

where E is trying to get S to pass because of the previous incident. In my view there is, the first is fine, but overdoing it with the supplementary when you're looking at the 7 count isn't.

 

The CPU is also interesting, if partner has plenty of previous for passing the board out when a lot of questions have been asked on his right or removing to his 5 or 6 card suit even though systemically he should always redouble, how much of this are the opponents entitled to know ?

[iviehoff]

What does "100% forcing mean"? It certainly doesn't prevent pass as a misbid or psyche occurring. Likewise "He must redouble" doesn't prevent partner on occasion choosing to call 2D, or whatever. Agreements are not contracts with the opposition. I expect "100% forcing" means "he made that call on the assumption that, if I have my hand, I will always redouble". I don't find that an unreasonable usage of the phrase, and I do not expect that a call described as 100% forcing will never be passed. Nor do I expect relay situations to be 100% respected.

 

What seems unfair about the situation is that NS can have an agreement that you need to know about, then take advantage of the opponent's evident interest in asking questions about it; yet the opponents are not allowed to randomise their decision to ask questions in order to conceal any inference that the ops might make from their questions.

[Cyberyeti]

What does "100% forcing mean"? It certainly doesn't prevent pass as a misbid or psyche occurring. Likewise "He must redouble" doesn't prevent partner on occasion choosing to call 2D, or whatever. Agreements are not contracts with the opposition. I expect "100% forcing" means "he made that call on the assumption that, if I have my hand, I will always redouble". I don't find that an unreasonable usage of the phrase, and I do not expect that a call described as 100% forcing will never be passed. Nor do I expect relay situations to be 100% respected.

It's not a contract signed in blood, but if the passer knows that even though the system agreement is that redouble is mandatory, history suggests that 30% of the time opener does something else, what does he say to the opps, and how big does that percentage have to be before he mentions it ? Also if you've noticed that every time a lot of questions are asked where it seems that the oppo is anxious to have the auction continue, he passes it out, do you have to mention that ?

[gnasher]

It's not a contract signed in blood, but if the passer knows that even though the system agreement is that redouble is mandatory, history suggests that 30% of the time opener does something else, what does he say to the opps

He tells them. That's clearly an implicit agreement.

 

, and how big does that percentage have to be before he mentions it ?

If it's often enough for responder to have noticed, it's often enough for him to mention it.

 

Also if you've noticed that every time a lot of questions are asked where it seems that the oppo is anxious to have the auction continue, he passes it out, do you have to mention that ?

Yes, again that's clearly an implicit agreement.

[mrdct]

The CPU thing is not applicable here because, again, only North is not allowed to take advantage of a CPU.

If North-South's real agreement is "pass forces a redouble but if you sniff (from AI of course) that we might be making, you can pass if you want" then this is a CPU which should be disclosed to East-West so it is relevant.

 

However, if through experience playing against this North-South pair East knows that quizing the forcing nature of responders pass will likely result in 1NTx being passed by opener and East then proceeds to ask about North's pass with no real bridge reason and with an objective to fool South into passing, that's cheating - but virtually impossible to prove.

 

Two wrongs probably make a right here I think!

[bluejak]

This is a hypothetical question but cobbled together from real events.

 

It relates to 2 pairs games several months apart with the same 4 (decent experienced) players at the table, the same auction, vulnerability (all) and questions asked.

 

S opens 1N weak

W doubles for penalties

N passes, alerted

E asks about the redouble, confirms it's 100% forcing and passes

S sees E wants to be sure he's getting another bid and passes

 

The first time E has a flat 0 count, S chalks up +380, EW could have rescued into 2 of a suit

 

The second time E has a flat 7 count (and no bridge reason to ask about the redouble) and they take 800 with NS able to play in 2 of a suit more cheaply.

 

S calls in the TD second time and asks about the ethics of E's question. E counters that NS have a CPU that the redouble isn't really forcing so the description is misleading.

 

Now what ?

South alerts the pass, East asks, and South asks about the ethics of East's asking? It is time South grew up. Why shouldn't East ask?

 

East’s complaint is reasonable, of course. MI, no question, and I would warn South it is time to change his description.

[Cyberyeti]

OK, now it's time to explain the purpose of the question and to ask for advice.

 

We play this sort of forced redouble mechanism.

 

I open a lot more slightly unusual weak no trumps than my partner, not flat out psyches but little distortions (xx, Q10xx, xx, AKQ9x which he would open 1♣ for example yesterday in 3rd seat to shut out the spades). This means that I do something other than redouble (I'd bid 2♣ here if 1N-x came back to me) much more often than he does, and I don't think he'd ever pass out 1Nx while I have 2 or 3 times in 15 years.

 

While our system agreement is the same for both of us, our propensity for bending system agreements is different, meaning that even though we would both pull 1Nx on the same hands, he wouldn't have opened 1N in the first place with many of them, meaning the odds at the table of something other than a redouble are different.

 

A side effect is that I explain his forcing pass subtly differently to the way he explains mine. I explain his as "forcing usually to a redouble", he explains mine as "forcing to a redouble". I don't think this has been a conscious decision by either of us up to this point, it just comes out like that.

 

How close does this come to breaking the "both partners must play the same system" requirement.

 

Also on the odd occasion where I have passed 1Nx out, RHO has asked several questions to absolutely ensure I was going to bid again. And has had nothing each time. I wanted to see what people felt about asking multiple questions with a reasonable hand to try to induce a pass, my view is that one question is very reasonable, several in that circumstance would need a look.

[blackshoe]

The right question to start with is "please explain your auction". If something is unclear in that explanation, you are entitled to ask follow-up questions to get clarification. But if you're asking the same question repeatedly, or hammering the same point repeatedly, even with different questions, then you're using the questions to attempt to influence your opponents' bidding. This is illegal.

[bluejak]

Also on the odd occasion where I have passed 1Nx out, RHO has asked several questions to absolutely ensure I was going to bid again. And has had nothing each time. I wanted to see what people felt about asking multiple questions with a reasonable hand to try to induce a pass, my view is that one question is very reasonable, several in that circumstance would need a look.

Supposing I was playing against you and I asked about your methods. I might notice with interest the word “usually” and because of that might ask more to elicit what was going on.

 

What right would you have to suggest this is "about asking multiple questions with a reasonable hand to try to induce a pass"? If you suggested that I would put in a formal complaint to the EBU L&EC about this unjustified and unjustifiable accusation.

 

It would never occur to me that you were going to pass a forcing pass and the idea that I would be trying to induce a pass I consider nonsensical and offensive.

 

People ask questions because they want to know what is going on.

[Cyberyeti]

Supposing I was playing against you and I asked about your methods. I might notice with interest the word “usually” and because of that might ask more to elicit what was going on.

 

What right would you have to suggest this is "about asking multiple questions with a reasonable hand to try to induce a pass"? If you suggested that I would put in a formal complaint to the EBU L&EC about this unjustified and unjustifiable accusation.

 

It would never occur to me that you were going to pass a forcing pass and the idea that I would be trying to induce a pass I consider nonsensical and offensive.

 

People ask questions because they want to know what is going on.

I should have been clearer.

 

To me this is fine:

 

"forcing usually to a redouble"

"usually ?"

"yes I can bid 2 of a suit if I feel like it"

 

But this isn't if you have a decent flat hand that would like to defend 1Nx and has no desperate wish to play anywhere else in particular (the man has said it's forcing, why ask again):

 

"forcing usually to a redouble"

"usually ?"

"yes I can bid 2 of a suit if I feel like it"

"but I'm absolutely 100% guaranteed another bid"

"yes"

 

I think you should at least be asked the question as to why you asked the follow up.

[iviehoff]

Why shouldn't East ask?

Why shouldn't one take one's time to decide how to signal with a doubleton, or think about the hand in general before playing a singleton? Given the clear warning at 3E5, E's actions are a breach of L73D2 - that is if we agree with the spin put on them in the OP. We might say that S protests to distract attention from his own operation, and laugh how he was hoist by his own petard. But even the guilty have a right to due process.

[bluejak]

I should have been clearer.

 

To me this is fine:

 

"forcing usually to a redouble"

"usually ?"

"yes I can bid 2 of a suit if I feel like it"

 

But this isn't if you have a decent flat hand that would like to defend 1Nx and has no desperate wish to play anywhere else in particular (the man has said it's forcing, why ask again):

 

"forcing usually to a redouble"

"usually ?"

"yes I can bid 2 of a suit if I feel like it"

"but I'm absolutely 100% guaranteed another bid"

"yes"

 

I think you should at least be asked the question as to why you asked the follow up.

How about "I play 2♦ different from pass then 2♦" [which I do]? I still cannot see this business of inducing an opponent to tell lies by asking questions.

 

If you play it as forcing you play it as forcing and my asking questions does not affect that, and if it does, that is your own stupidity. But the suggestion I ask questions so that you shall pass a forcing call is from the planet Zarg.

[mrdct]

I open a lot more slightly unusual weak no trumps than my partner, not flat out psyches but little distortions (xx, Q10xx, xx, AKQ9x which he would open 1♣ for example yesterday in 3rd seat to shut out the spades). This means that I do something other than redouble (I'd bid 2♣ here if 1N-x came back to me) much more often than he does, and I don't think he'd ever pass out 1Nx while I have 2 or 3 times in 15 years.

 

While our system agreement is the same for both of us, our propensity for bending system agreements is different, meaning that even though we would both pull 1Nx on the same hands, he wouldn't have opened 1N in the first place with many of them, meaning the odds at the table of something other than a redouble are different.

 

A side effect is that I explain his forcing pass subtly differently to the way he explains mine. I explain his as "forcing usually to a redouble", he explains mine as "forcing to a redouble". I don't think this has been a conscious decision by either of us up to this point, it just comes out like that.

 

How close does this come to breaking the "both partners must play the same system" requirement.

I'm not expert on EBU requirements, but flicking through the Orange Book, I think you are OK:

 

10 A 2: Both members of a partnership must have the same bidding agreements and play the same system of leads, signals and discards.

 

4 D 5: The two members of a partnership may play a different style from each other, for example while opening pre-empts one player may take more liberties with suit quality than the other. Such differences in style should be explained in answer to a question, and, where suitable, disclosed on the convention card.

 

However, you do need to be careful with your disclosure obligations, starting with indicating on your convention card the different styles adopted for your 1NT openings and the implications this has on your escape mechanism after you've been doubled.

 

You also need to be careful with using the term "forcing" in the EBU as it is regulated there that if the term is used without qualification it must convey that the forcing nature is based on strength, refer:

 

3 B 6: ‘Forcing’ means a call which a partnership has agreed cannot be passed. Forcing, without qualification, means forcing from strength. If a forcing bid might be made with a weak hand, a player must qualify any explanation to make this clear.

 

3 B 7: Whilst all agreements must be disclosed, they do not constitute an undertaking to the opposition. For instance, a player is quite entitled to pass a forcing bid, as long as the partnership has no agreement that this might happen.

 

Under EBU regulations, if you have a partnership agreement that partner's forcing pass can be passed you must explicitly disclose that agreement in your explanation.

 

I'm not sure what your 1NT escape mechanism is, but if there are negative inferences from responder's failure to redouble or bid a suit at the two level, this should also be disclosed in your explanation of the pass. For example, if you play something like SWINE where single-suiters redouble as a puppet to 2♣ you need to describe responder's pass as something like, "pass asks me to redouble which he's either going to pass to play or bid the lower of his two-suits, so he's either a hand suitable to play 1NTxx or a weak two-suiter; but if I've got a good suit of my own I can bid that rather than redouble and I could even pass 1NTx".

[Cyberyeti]

What we normally actually do is say that pass is forcing (usually) to a redouble and ask if they want more info on hand types. Normally that redouble is forcing is all they need to know at this stage.

 

We do not have an agreement that the forcing pass can be passed, nor sufficient behaviour to indicate a CPU unless you consider 2 or 3 times in 15 years to be that.