[Phil]

---

Was told about this one.

South is a known operator and has around 8,000 MPs. North has about 1,500. West is a pro and East is the client.

After the 2nd double, North asked, "How do you take the double? Is it takeout or penalty?" Before East could answer, North retracted, and said "Never mind, if you don't know, don't answer".

2♣x'd made 4.

Obviously 1N is horrible, and the 2nd double is questionable. Is either action a SeWOG?

Any issues with the (withdrawn) question?

Thanks.

[bluejak]

I think you have to be there. It seems an unlikely form of lousy ethics to me and I wonder whether the story has been changed somewhat in the retelling.

If North really asked a question and without giving the player a chance to answer then he has definitely breached some ethical Law or other. But it is such an unlikely scenario really.

It seems to me far more likely that he asked, East was a little hesitant, and then North withdrew the question. Considerably different legally and ethically.

[Phil]

bluejak, on 2011-August-13, 15:40, said:

I think you have to be there. It seems an unlikely form of lousy ethics to me and I wonder whether the story has been changed somewhat in the retelling.

If North really asked a question and without giving the player a chance to answer then he has definitely breached some ethical Law or other. But it is such an unlikely scenario really.

It seems to me far more likely that he asked, East was a little hesitant, and then North withdrew the question. Considerably different legally and ethically.

At least how it was presented to me, the question was asked and North did not give East a chance to answer. I presume she instantly thought the client wouldn't know and didn't answer East's answer to influence what West did - if, in fact, there was going to be more bidding.

[peachy]

North has the right to ask the meaning of the Dbl but he has no right to ask how East "takes it". This whole scenario stinks. If North needed to know, he could have called TD or waited till East gave the answer. So North didn't really need to know the meaning, as evidenced from what happened when he withdrew the badly phrased inquiry without giving East a chance to answer. I would be upset at North's antics whether I was East, South, or West in this case. North has either intentionally or out of crude insensitivity caused trouble and perhaps made East feel embarrassed as well. Oh well. [end of rant] Still, I don't know what to do about it all, if anything.

[ahydra]

IANATD but here's my take. East isn't a particularly strong player as evidenced by the weird 1NT and the passing of the second double which most players would play as takeout. I can't see how North's question influenced East's decision (outside of possibly East becoming flustered), so result stands - you make a mistake, you get a bad result, you learn from it. If he/she got flustered, he/she can also learn not to let other players at the table boss him/her around.

But I don't like North's actions. We're not told the jurisdiction so I've no idea how much 1500 MPs is - here in England that's not very much at all (I have 3000 or so and get top 5 at most club nights if I'm lucky). If 1500 MPs actually indicates a strong(ish) player, I'd be issuing at least a warning if not a PP to North - asking a question then retracting it before East has a chance to answer is pretty rude (and as peachy suggested, maybe he didn't actually need to know the meaning), not to mention the question isn't of the correct form required by the Laws.

Be nice to beginners since they're the future of the game?

ahydra

[barmar]

Based on the fact that Phil lives in California, it seems likely this was ACBL jurisdiction. 1500 ACBL masterpoints is usually a decent flight B player -- experienced, but not expert.

As for the particular question asked, many players don't know the proper form to ask questions about agreements, and "how do you take" is simply their way of asking for the meaning. Similarly, many players will take it on themselves to answer questions with something like "I'm not sure, but I take it as ...". It's hard to say whether North intended to ask an inappropriate question, or just asked the wrong form out of ignorance.

I think it's likely that North asked the question out of habit, but then looked at his hand and realized it was a silly question. Although I guess the "known operator" qualification about South implies that the 2♣ bid could have been a psyche. But even if it was, he realized that the answer wouldn't change his action. He's certainly not going to pull to a 5-0 fit. Although I've never seen someone say "If you don't know, don't answer" except in situations where the opponent appeared to be unsure. If he just wants to retract his question, he usually just says, "Never mind."

[Phil]

Barmar gives a good characterization of a Flight B player - experienced and competent, but not expert. If NS were reversed, I would have give a strong rebuke to a player with a lot of points to ask a question like this.

My bigger concern about this question is that North wants to play 2C x'd! I can't see a better way than to do this as to somehow 'dare' East to pass.

If I held 2-3 in the round suits as North, I would feel less inclined to sit for 2♣x'd if I know RHOs x is penalty since we may have a better spot in 2♥ and we might avoid the axe altogether. If the double is takeout or DSIP (is there a consensus?) then I feel a lot better about sitting since East could easily be pulling. 2-3 in the round suits is the hand that asks, not five trump, a void in pards suit and an outside ace! Therefore, I consider the question a subtle form of coffeehousing.

"What is the 2nd double" (oh dear what shall I do), "wait don't tell me if you don't know". Pass.

By the way after the West player made a brief comment, North called the director and thought a 'bridge reason' for the questions is because North is considering 3♣ directly.

[Mbodell]

Phil, on 2011-August-14, 22:43, said:

Barmar gives a good characterization of a Flight B player - experienced and competent, but not expert. If NS were reversed, I would have give a strong rebuke to a player with a lot of points to ask a question like this.

My bigger concern about this question is that North wants to play 2C x'd! I can't see a better way than to do this as to somehow 'dare' East to pass.

By the way after the West player made a brief comment, North called the director and thought a 'bridge reason' for the questions is because North is considering 3♣ directly.

I have about the same MP as N and I do sometimes ask when I'm considering raising my partner (figuring it is dumb to raise in a preempt if opps are trying to penalize us in this suit at this level). I'd ask a little different than N (Usually either "Do you have an agreement about the X?" or "Please explain the auction").

I have recently played in a match point individual where I doubled for penalty at the 3 level, the opponents raised to the 4 level, and I doubled that and they took 9 tricks.