Forced redouble shenanigans

[mrdct]

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.

I don't think that's adequate disclosure. The pass by responder carries with it some quite detailed information about the sorts of hand-types it may include that your opponents could not reasonably be expected to work-out for themselves and, indeed, by only saying that it's "forcing (usually) to a redouble" it could quite easily be miscontrued as showing strength which certainly isn't always the case.

 

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.

The Orange Book requirement is that you must have "no agreement that this might happen" which seems to contemplate even the rarest of transgressions from the "forcing" nature of responder's pass. You are probably right that 2 or 3 times in 15 years wouldn't lead to a CPU, but if you've actually discussed it with your partner or your partner happens to read this forum, it's starting to look like an agreement to me.

 

Adding to my earlier comments about members of a partnership playing a different style from each other, I must say that in the real world there are plenty of partnerships, including some fairly high-profile partnerships, where the two players do have quite different pre-empting styles in particular, but I can't recall ever seeing that disclosed on a convention card for a major event. If anyone can dig-up an example I'd be pleased to see it.

[Cyberyeti]

If you can find anybody in the UK (and possibly the world) that plays this pass as always showing strength, I'll buy you an e-beer, I think (particularly in the UK where it's fairly common) unless you're a complete beginner you will know that this is "to play in 1Nxx or some variety of weak hands", so while it would not be complete disclosure, it suffices as it would be nigh on impossible to claim damage.

 

You can hardly write on the convention card the real situation as regards this pass, which is that it's forcing unless RHO shows a lot of discomfort and asks several questions to ensure that I'm definitely going to bid again.

[gnasher]

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.

That depends. If you passed it out in years 2, 7 and 12, I agree that you probably have no agreement to do this. If, on the other hand, you had 13 years of always redoubling, followed by two years during which you passed three times, that sounds like an agreement.

[Cyberyeti]

That depends. If you passed it out in years 2, 7 and 12, I agree that you probably have no agreement to do this. If, on the other hand, you had 13 years of always redoubling, followed by two years during which you passed three times, that sounds like an agreement.

No argument with that, it is the former.

[barmar]

I don't think that's adequate disclosure. The pass by responder carries with it some quite detailed information about the sorts of hand-types it may include that your opponents could not reasonably be expected to work-out for themselves and, indeed, by only saying that it's "forcing (usually) to a redouble" it could quite easily be miscontrued as showing strength which certainly isn't always the case.

He said he provides more details if they want them. Many opponents are familiar with the basics of common NT runout systems, so they don't need the full details immediately. In particular, what the "pass forces redouble" systems usually have in common is that you won't know whether responder has a good or bad hand until his NEXT call (if he passes the redouble, he has the good one).

[mrdct]

He said he provides more details if they want them. Many opponents are familiar with the basics of common NT runout systems, so they don't need the full details immediately. In particular, what the "pass forces redouble" systems usually have in common is that you won't know whether responder has a good or bad hand until his NEXT call (if he passes the redouble, he has the good one).

The problem is that in the EBU if a forcing call includes a weak option you are required to explicitly qualify your explanation to make that clear. Even if this is a common treatment in the UK, where I guess weak 1NT openings are fairly prevalent, the disclosure requirements of the Regulatory Authority still need to be followed.

[barmar]

The problem is that in the EBU if a forcing call includes a weak option you are required to explicitly qualify your explanation to make that clear. Even if this is a common treatment in the UK, where I guess weak 1NT openings are fairly prevalent, the disclosure requirements of the Regulatory Authority still need to be followed.

So when you explain a transfer, you have to explicitly mention that he might have a weak hand? And what's the typical way to explain Lebensohl?

[mrdct]

So when you explain a transfer, you have to explicitly mention that he might have a weak hand? And what's the typical way to explain Lebensohl?

Bear in mind that I'm only talking about the EBU here (a jurisdiction in which I've never played or directed) which seems to have a pretty clear regulation that if you describe a call as forcing and it could be weak, you need to say so. I strongly suspect that this regulation isn't strictly enforced for practical reasons, but don't have any evidence to back that up.

 

In describing a transfer, in any jurisdiction, I would never use the F-word and would simply describe it as "transfer to Y"; although when I'm playing a system which includes transfers on 4-card suits I say, "that shows 4+ Xs".

 

As for Lebensohl, if I'm playing against people who understand Lebensohl, I will simply say "Lebensohl", but if I have any doubt about whether my opponents understand it, I will give a detailed explanation along the lines of, "that's asking me to bid 3♣ which he's either going pass if he's weak with ♣, bid a new suit non-forcing or show a GF hand in which case he'll have a stopper in X".

[mjj29]

If you can find anybody in the UK (and possibly the world) that plays this pass as always showing strength, I'll buy you an e-beer, I think (particularly in the UK where it's fairly common) unless you're a complete beginner you will know that this is "to play in 1Nxx or some variety of weak hands", so while it would not be complete disclosure, it suffices as it would be nigh on impossible to claim damage.

 

I've certainly heard of people who play XX=to play and P=forces XX, also to play, depending on which of the opponents you'd rather put on the spot - but I wouldn't be able to give you a name (and the story _might_ be apocryphal)

[Zelandakh]

Why not simply describe the pass as:

"Partner has either a hand that wants to play 1NT redoubled or various weak hand types. I am expected to redouble but may take other action with an unusual hand."

 

This seems to summarise your agreeemnt and applies to both partners.

[aguahombre]

"Forcing to redouble" is an explanation which states what the person explaining is going to do (not what the pass means). And, if the NT opener is allowed to do something else, it is just plain MI.

 

"Forcing to redouble, unless I have an unusual hand" is worse, because it gives more UI to partner.

 

"Forcing" would be the right explanation of the meaning of the pass.

[Cyberyeti]

"Forcing to redouble" is an explanation which states what the person explaining is going to do (not what the pass means). And, if the NT opener is allowed to do something else, it is just plain MI.

 

"Forcing to redouble, unless I have an unusual hand" is worse, because it gives more UI to partner.

 

"Forcing" would be the right explanation of the meaning of the pass.

"Forcing, not necessarily strong" seems to cover all the obligations.

[iviehoff]

I think "relay to redouble" is perhaps better wording, because the EBU would like us to reserve the term "forcing" to mean "forcing from strength".

 

I once had trouble getting a proper explanation from someone who was playing double as a relay to 2C. He initially described it as a "transfer to 2C", which I tend to take as implying that the bidder holds the suit transferred to. But suspecting that this may not be the case, I asked what hand-types the call was made on, and was told that his partner was free to make whatever bids he chose. After some further obfuscation, the director was called.

[campboy]

You are right about the meaning of transfer, but I think, in England at least, a relay is something else and this would be a puppet. I prefer the phrase "requires me to bid 2♣" to either.

[bluejak]

We tend to apply regulations with common sense. The reason for the regulation about forcing is for situations where there is doubt. When there is no doubt we do not expect silly adherence to unnecessary regulations.

 

Forcing to redouble seems the best way to keep opponents informed if that is what you play. UI is irrelevant: you should never fail to keep the opponents fully informed because of UI considerations, in fact it is illegal to do so.

 

"Transfer" is a specific abuse that the EBU is trying to stamp out: if you “transfer to clubs”, for example, you show clubs. So Lebensohl, for example is a puppet to clubs but not a transfer. Rubinsohl, or whatever it is called, where 2NT actually shows clubs, is a transfer to clubs. As campboy says, “relay” has different connotations as well.

 

But safest of all, as always, is to describe your agreements in terms that will not be misunderstood, and avoiding such words helps. Against good opponents I describe 1NT (2♠) 2NT as "Lebensohl" because I know they know what I mean and will not assume follow-ups of any specific type: against poor opponents I say "2NT forces me to bid 3♣, and shows a variety of hands, some strong, some weak."

[wyman]

We tend to apply regulations with common sense. The reason for the regulation about forcing is for situations where there is doubt. When there is no doubt we do not expect silly adherence to unnecessary regulations.

 

Forcing to redouble seems the best way to keep opponents informed if that is what you play. UI is irrelevant: you should never fail to keep the opponents fully informed because of UI considerations, in fact it is illegal to do so.

 

"Transfer" is a specific abuse that the EBU is trying to stamp out: if you "transfer to clubs", for example, you show clubs. So Lebensohl, for example is a puppet to clubs but not a transfer. Rubinsohl, or whatever it is called, where 2NT actually shows clubs, is a transfer to clubs. As campboy says, "relay" has different connotations as well.

 

But safest of all, as always, is to describe your agreements in terms that will not be misunderstood, and avoiding such words helps. Against good opponents I describe 1NT (2♠) 2NT as "Lebensohl" because I know they know what I mean and will not assume follow-ups of any specific type: against poor opponents I say "2NT forces me to bid 3♣, and shows a variety of hands, some strong, some weak."

 

BW suggests that puppets are a subset of transfers, and the words may be used interchangeably when the bid is in fact a puppet. Lebensohl, as in over interference over 1N is a puppet. Lebensohl, as over a reverse, is a marionette. It requests that opener bid 3C, but opener, with suitable hands, may deviate.

 

http://www.bridgewor...y&f=glossa.html

 

[i agree that most of these words have meanings that are understood throughout the community, especially at low levels, and in the interest of full disclosure, one should really explain bids more fully. I'm just nitting it up about the actual definitions.]

[campboy]

My reading of that glossary is that "transfer" is ambiguous, since two unrelated meanings are given, and that "puppet" may be used unambiguously for the second meaning. The EBU has, sensibly IMO, made a regulation that "transfer" should only be used with the first meaning when disclosing agreements in its jurisdiction.

[mrdct]

My reading of that glossary is that "transfer" is ambiguous, since two unrelated meanings are given, and that "puppet" may be used unambiguously for the second meaning. The EBU has, sensibly IMO, made a regulation that "transfer" should only be used with the first meaning when disclosing agreements in its jurisdiction.

The EBU also advises that as the term "puppet" is not well known and confuses players, it's best to describe puppet bids in full. Similar advice prevails in Australia, so I usually say, "that asks me to bid 2♦ but doesn't say anything at all about ♦ - he might pass it if he's weak with ♦ or he can make a natural inviational bid or a GF enquiry".

[barmar]

Rather than using the F word, I've heard some players say "asks me to {redouble, bid 3♣, etc.}". "asks" seems like less of a requirement than "forces".

[mrdct]

"asks" seems like less of a requirement than "forces".

I've finally worked out why my kids never do the dishes even though I've asked them to do it.

[SimonFa]

I was chided a couple of times for asking about alerts and then not bidding when I first started playing club bridge last year.

 

My response was along the lines of ".... how do I know I'm not going to bid if don't know what that bid means?"

 

Now I understand more systems and who plays them I don't need to ask, but if something unusual pops up I will ask even if it is unlikely that I will bid.

 

I appreciate this is not quite what the OP had on mind but the laws and regulations have to take in to account these different situations, don't they?

[Cyberyeti]

I was chided a couple of times for asking about alerts and then not bidding when I first started playing club bridge last year.

 

My response was along the lines of ".... how do I know I'm not going to bid if don't know what that bid means?"

 

Now I understand more systems and who plays them I don't need to ask, but if something unusual pops up I will ask even if it is unlikely that I will bid.

 

I appreciate this is not quite what the OP had on mind but the laws and regulations have to take in to account these different situations, don't they?

What I was getting at was asking questions when you're not going to bid whatever the answer was. It's fairly sound advice to not ask until the answer might make a difference to your action.

 

The usual reason for this advice is so as not to give partner a problem (pre announcements 1N-(range ? 12-14) P- P -2any and a subsequent director call because the question implied interest, a flat 5 count doesn't ask).

 

What this thread is about is deliberately creating an impression by your repeated questions in an opponent's mind that you hold a hand you don't, and to me is similar to declarer holding an unbid KJxx seeing LHO lead the Q and quizzing RHO about whether this shows the K or J.

[campboy]

What I was getting at was asking questions when you're not going to bid whatever the answer was. It's fairly sound advice to not ask until the answer might make a difference to your action.

I disagree. If, as is not unusual when the auction starts (1NT) x (p!), I expect that I will need to ask next round I may as well do so now and transmit less UI.

[gnasher]

What I was getting at was asking questions when you're not going to bid whatever the answer was. It's fairly sound advice to not ask until the answer might make a difference to your action.

Personally I think that's dreadful advice. This approach is guaranteed to give partner UI, as well as giving the opponents information to which they're not entitled.

 

The usual reason for this advice is so as not to give partner a problem (pre announcements 1N-(range ? 12-14) P- P -2any and a subsequent director call because the question implied interest, a flat 5 count doesn't ask).

Then this advice fails miserably in its objective. If you ask and then pass, partner will know that given a different answer you would have bid, so he will have UI. Or if you ask and then bid, he will know that given a different answer you would have done something else, so he will have UI.

 

What this thread is about is deliberately creating an impression by your repeated questions in an opponent's mind that you hold a hand you don't, and to me is similar to declarer holding an unbid KJxx seeing LHO lead the Q and quizzing RHO about whether this shows the K or J.

If your question was "Is it acceptable to deliberately create an impression by your repeated questions in an opponent's mind that you hold a hand you don't?", this thread could have been rather shorter.

[Cyberyeti]

Personally I think that's dreadful advice. This approach is guaranteed to give partner UI, as well as giving the opponents information to which they're not entitled.

 

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

 

Then this advice fails miserably in its objective. If you ask and then pass, partner will know that given a different answer you would have bid, so he will have UI. Or if you ask and then bid, he will know that given a different answer you would have done something else, so he will have UI.

 

It may be that it shouldn't be the case but in my experience it is that if you're going to bid, you want to know what you're bidding over, so asking first doesn't create UI. It may also be that you were always going to bid, but what you were going to bid changes with the meaning of the opps action. It's ask/pass that creates the issues.

 

If your question was "Is it acceptable to deliberately create an impression by your repeated questions in an opponent's mind that you hold a hand you don't?", this thread could have been rather shorter.

 

That was one of my questions, the other was my obligations in explanation.