[blml] Réf. : Re: De Whale

[Eric Landau]

At 10:45 AM 4/13/07, Herman wrote:

>Alain Gottcheiner wrote:
>
> > The man who bids 4H either has 6 hearts or only one. There is
> > no ambiguity as to his intentions. And the bid cannot mean both at the
> > same time. The responder will either pass or go on to 4S or 6S, and
> > there too is no ambiguity. If both are on the same wavelength, how are
> > you going to believe them when they say "no agreement".
> >
> >
> > I'd like to add that there are cases where the action is obvious even
> > absent the agreement. In that case, Herman's automatic adjustment for
> > "guessing right" seems wrong.
> >
> > It's teams, and the bidding (unopposed) goes : 1S - 2C - 2S - 3S.
> > Now RHO asks about 3S (strange time to do it, but it was in the BW 
> case
> > too).
> > He wants to know whether 3S is forcing.
> > You answer : "I don't know".
> >
> > Just assume it's true : you didn't discuss it.
> > Of course, you, me and the Emperor of Tonkin will bid 4S on a minimum,
> > just in case.
> >
> > If we guessed right, should we be penalized ? Surely not.
>
>Why not?
>
>OK, let's assume the worst case: partner did indeed have game-going
>values, and thus clearly intended 3S to be forcing. When asked, he
>tells us : "isn't that obvious?".
>You, OTOH, have only a minimum, and yet you raised it to game. When
>asked, you say "even the Emperor of Tonkin would raise this".
>
>So apparently, you two are in agreement.
>
>Yet you refused to inform your opponents that you could have the bare
>minimum for your hand.
>And you defend that incomplete information with the (even true)
>statement that you did not discuss it.
>
>Now both you and I know that it is not enough to divulge the things
>you discussed, but also the things you agreed upon without ever
>speaking about it (like the NT range or Stayman).
>
>So why should the TD not rule against you?
>
>Maybe the best answer you could have given is "we have not discussed
>it, but even the Emperor of Tonkin plays this as forcing".

That misses Alain's point entirely; neither Herman, nor I, nor Alain, 
knows whether or not the Emperor of Tonkin plays this as forcing, and 
it doesn't matter.  The point is that I, or Alain, or the Emperor of 
Tonkin, and, I suspect, possibly even Herman, faced with not knowing 
whether it forcing or not, will choose the obvious hedge, which is to 
raise.  And they will do so even if they hold a minimum and believe 
that it's only 25% likely to be forcing, risking having to hope for 
some luck a slightly understrength contract, if that turns out to be 
the case, rather than concede the board outright if they pass 3S cold 
for game.

This is why the "De Wael school" is not so much wrong as simply 
nonsense.  It assumes that faced with a call that might mean either A 
or B, one has only two choices: assume A, which results in taking 
action X, or assume B, which results in taking action Y.  If that were 
valid, there would be a case for describing the call as A when one 
plans to do X or as B when one plans to do Y -- the DWs 
prescription.  But any competent player will assume neither A nor B, 
but will take the action that maximizes his expected result, Z.  That 
may coincide with either X or Y, but even if so need not reflect any 
positive expectation of meaning A or B.

So here we are.  Partner bid 3S.  I'm pretty sure that he intends it to 
be non-forcing, but I'm not certain, so I am going to raise to game 
with my minimum just in case.  The DWs gives me the choice of either 
describing 3S as forcing, deliberately misleading my opponents about 
the likely contents of partner's hand (I really don't expect him to 
have enough for a forcing 3S), or as non-forcing, deliberately 
misleading my opponents about the contents of my own hand (I know I 
don't have enough for my 4S bid over a non-forcing 3S).  It 
specifically does not allow me to truthfully reveal my uncertainty, 
even though, if 3S really was intended as non-forcing, as I expect, it 
is only by doing so that I can offer an explanation that's consistent 
with the actual auction!


Eric Landau                     ehaa at starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607