Forced redouble shenanigans

[gnasher]

On the odd occasion it happens yes, on the 99% of occasions where you just pass without asking, it improves the situation.

Considering these two:

(1) Ask 1% of the time; don't ask 99% of the time

(2) Ask 100% of the time

 

Are you saying that (1) transmits less UI than (2)?

[Cyberyeti]

Considering these two:

(1) Ask 1% of the time; don't ask 99% of the time

(2) Ask 100% of the time

 

Are you saying that (1) transmits less UI than (2)?

The problem is that 2 never actually occurs, it's always ask some of the time, and unless you apply it to every alert situation which is going to cause significant slow play issues, you're going to find it difficult to demonstrate to a director that you always ask in this one.

[campboy]

The problem is that 2 never actually occurs, it's always ask some of the time, and unless you apply it to every alert situation which is going to cause significant slow play issues, you're going to find it difficult to demonstrate to a director that you always ask in this one.

I personally would always ask here (unless I already knew the answer, in which case I do not think I am permitted to do so), and in general after almost any alerted call on the first round of the auction (the only auctions I can think of where I would not bother are 1x (1y) 3x and similar, where it is clear what the alert means). I don't find it slows me down, which is perhaps obvious since if I didn't ask immediately I would be asking at the start of play anyway.

[gnasher]

The problem is that 2 never actually occurs, it's always ask some of the time, and unless you apply it to every alert situation which is going to cause significant slow play issues, you're going to find it difficult to demonstrate to a director that you always ask in this one.

You're mistaken. I would always ask about an alerted pass in this auction, regardless of my actual hand. And I've never had any trouble with convincing either a director or opponents of that.

 

As for the "slow play" issue, at some point during this board one member of our partnership is going to ask the meaning of the pass. I can't see why you think it will cause more delay to ask now rather than later.

[Cyberyeti]

You're mistaken. I would always ask about an alerted pass in this auction, regardless of my actual hand. And I've never had any trouble with convincing either a director or opponents of that.

 

As for the "slow play" issue, at some point during this board one member of our partnership is going to ask the meaning of the pass. I can't see why you think it will cause more delay to ask now rather than later.

I don't think so, what is there to ask about after 1N-x-P!-P-XX-P-P ?

[barmar]

You're mistaken. I would always ask about an alerted pass in this auction, regardless of my actual hand. And I've never had any trouble with convincing either a director or opponents of that.

I don't think the issue is whether you would always ask in this auction, but whether you ask about ALL alerts. Any inconsistency in asking passes UI.

 

However, there's no Law against transmitting UI (as long as you don't take an action specifically for that purpose), the Laws prohibit USING the UI. The advice to only ask questions when you care about the answer assumes an ethical partner who isn't going to change his action based on whether you ask.

[blackshoe]

Seems to me that UI of the form "one of these things is different from the others" doesn't tell you much.

[gnasher]

I don't think so, what is there to ask about after 1N-x-P!-P-XX-P-P ?

The pass and the redouble, obviously. You may prefer to guess what your opponents' methods are instead of finding out, but it seems rather unreasoanble for you to expect everybody else to do the same.

[gnasher]

I don't think the issue is whether you would always ask in this auction, but whether you ask about ALL alerts. Any inconsistency in asking passes UI.

No, the question is whether I always ask about this category of call. If, for example, I ask about all alerted calls in competitive auctions, no UI is passed by asking about this redouble. The fact that there are other auctions where I might not ask is irrelevant.

 

Likewise, if I always ask about calls made by North on an odd-numbered round of the bidding when there's an 'r' in the month, no UI is passed by asking about this redouble.

[barmar]

No, the question is whether I always ask about this category of call. If, for example, I ask about all alerted calls in competitive auctions, no UI is passed by asking about this redouble. The fact that there are other auctions where I might not ask is irrelevant.

 

Likewise, if I always ask about calls made by North on an odd-numbered round of the bidding when there's an 'r' in the month, no UI is passed by asking about this redouble.

OK, I guess that fits the more general rule I mentioned, which is that you have to be consistent. If the "consistency" is based on an algorithm that doesn't include any useful information about your hand, it's OK. I suppose you could also use a random factor, like in the recent thread about bids that could have an alternate meaning some percentage of the time, where we contemplated ways to extract randomness from your hand without it being dependent on how strong it is.

 

But it's not enough to have a rule that says that you always ask when some condition is true -- you also have to NEVER ask when it's false. Otherwise, in the latter case, asking versus not asking would pass UI. Which means that there may be situations where you need to ask a question, but can't because it's the wrong month.

 

What you could do is ask EITHER when you actually need to know or when some other condition is met, but not tell partner what the condition is. This adds some noise to the UI when you ask -- it could just be an automatic ask. But a non-ask still passes the UI that you don't need to know.

[blackshoe]

I'm beginning to suspect that breathing passes UI. :blink:

[barmar]

For most people, sighing before making a bid or play would pass UI. But there's a LOL at my club who seems to sigh before just about everything she does, so I have to force myself not to take inference from it.

[barmar]

UI is like carcinogens or radiation -- you can't eliminate them completely, but you can live with the small amounts that are always present.

[gnasher]

But it's not enough to have a rule that says that you always ask when some condition is true -- you also have to NEVER ask when it's false

I don't think you have to make it perfect. I generally ask about any potentially conventional bid where it's moderately likely that I'd want to act, and live with the UI on the rare occasions that I ask about some other call. However, I'm not exact about this - I ask fewer questions if we're in time trouble, or if I think the opponents are uncertain of their methods, because I don't want to inflict a UI problem on them.

 

Opinions may vary about where to draw the line between asking and not asking, but any such strategy is better than only asking when you actually do want to know.

[shintaro]

I'm beginning to suspect that breathing passes UI. :blink:

 

 

:D it might indeed Ed or at least show that someone is still alive :)

[mycroft]

1. If I play a system where my fourth-in-hand calls are different from my eighth-in-hand calls to 1NT-X-p, I need to know if the call is 100% forcing. All I'm telling you is the truth - that it makes a difference to my potential action with certain hands - which I may or may not have. At least if I'm consistent about asking, which I would be in that case, as I was when playing non-lead-directing *and* one-under-splinter doubles, and they jump cue-bid our suit.

 

Given that I play a runout system that does not involve pass-forces-redouble, *expressly because* I don't want fourth-in-hand to have two shots at explaining themselves either when we have them or when we're continuing the preempt (i.e. running), I think this (differentiating between pass-and-bid and direct bid) is a useful strategy, if you'll allow me to play it.

 

Were I in a world where more than half the people used a runout system of some sort, I'd learn one of these counter-defences.

 

2. I think that if you're going to sniff out whether to sit for 1NTx based on how interested the opponents are in getting another chance to call, then you're likely to fall prey to this, whether or not it's on purpose. In fact, if your agreement is "forcing a redouble, unless I think I can pull off +380 by my table feel", then describing it as "forcing redouble" is probably incomplete.

 

Having said that, as East in the original scenario, I'd have said - whether or not I was trying something on - "Well, you see, Director, this same auction came up the last time we played against these guys (or "the last time this auction came up against these guys"), and the explanation was the same, and he passed anyway. I just wanted to check if their agreement had been clarified since then. Obviously, it either hasn't, or they're not explaining correctly."

 

Of course, *I* wouldn't be trying something on - much as I'd like to be allowed to - but I *might* just check to make sure, and not bother to check if I had a balanced 7 or a balanced zero.

 

And I would describe this pass as "either wanting to play 1NTxx, or the start of a (whatever-suited) runout", as I'd describe lebensohl 2NT as "shows a variety of hands, either weak in <suits>, invitational in <suits>, or game forcing with a stopper in <suit>". In neither case do I tell partner what I'm going to bid - even if they know; even if it's 100% forced. For a non-standard explanation why, 1♣-1♦; 1♥ "forces 1♠" in my Precision system. It almost never has spades. The worst case, in fact, is when it does have (hearts and) spades. But it does force 1♠ from partner. Is that useful information? Is that not, in fact, misleading information, even if you get the real explanation that it shows "either hearts, or 20-21 or 24-25 balanced" as well?