From: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (R. Bharat Rao)
Subject: Re: Cheating?
Reply-To: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 00:15:54 GMT

ted@welchgate.welch.jhu.edu (Ted Ying) writes:

>In article <1992Apr15.193916.17041@midway.uchicago.edu> valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu (Doug Dougherty) writes:
>>Here's another common one:
>>
>>	1S - 2C - X(*) - ?
>>
>>(*) Duly alerted as negative, etc.
>>
>>At ?, righty asks if the negative double shows hearts or not.  Guess how
>>many hearts he has?  Guess what suit he wants led?

Let me jump in and say that I don't think it is unethical to ask if
the double shows hearts.  What *is* unethical is if his partner infers
that he has hearts, and takes any such action.

Ted Ying sez...
>	Asking if the negative double shows hearts is IMHO definitely
>	unethical, since I can't think of a version of negative doubles
>	that doesn't show the opposite major.  

If you play ``negative free bids'' then the negative doubler could
have a heart void (unlikely but possible - say he has a game forcing
hand with a good diamond suit).  However, in this case the correct
Alert is ``Negative double, but *could* be offshape'' (and should be
marked as such near the negative doubles.

>       However, the borderline
>	question is "Does the negative double guarantee diamonds?  And
>	how many".  This implies interest in diamonds to partner.  The
>	correct question when they say "Negative double" is to ask,
>	"What do your negative doubles show?"  or "What does it show?"
>	and they will describe their version.  This doesn't inform
>	partner what information you are interested in.

Actually, the answer will often not clarify the point -- if you asked
me I might beginto explain about the non-guarantee of a major, while
your interest is in the diamond suit...

>	However, the part that I don't like is when people ask for an
>	explanation or a review and then cut it off after they get the
>	information that they want...informing their partner what
>	information they wanted.  This is strictly against the laws.
>	The ACBL Laws explicitly state that you can get a full review,
>	or a full explanation, and that you are not supposed to get a
>	partial review or explanation (hence you shouldn't cut it off
>	when you have what you want, but patiently listen to the whole
>	thing).

True .. but its often not practical...

>	Ted Ying			ted@welch.jhu.edu

More interesting quandry ...

Our opponents sit down and they play Precision or some complex relay
system ... it goes 1C(alert)-P-2D(alert)- at this point we request no
more Alerts, since its going to help the opponents more... now the
more interesting question is (with you and pard silent) RHO bids 4H;
you hold AQxx and would love that suit lead against a slam .. however,
for all you know hearts may be their agreed upon suit and they may be
signing off 4H.  So, if its conventional (as you suspect it is), you
want to double to get partner to lead hearts...

Of course you are *entitled* to ask for a full explanation (unless you
forfeited that right by requesting no Alerts - Asya?)

But is it ethical to do at exactly this point...

Bharat
--
R. Bharat Rao                          E-mail: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu 
AI Group, Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology
405 N. Matthews, Urbana, IL 61801  (217)-244-1263 (O) 337-6498(H)
Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana