dburn

The novel idea of using Law 67B to say that there has been a defective trick when there has not been a defective trick does not seem to be based in rationality. Indeed, it is one of the most absurd pieces of thinking I have ever encountered. A player who plays a card to a trick, and later picks that card up again by mistake and puts it back in his hand, has not thereby unplayed the card to the trick so that the trick becomes defective in retrospect. Four cards, no more and no fewer, were played to the trick, which was not defective then and is not defective now. The Director may use Law 67B to determine that there has been a defective trick if there is no other explanation for the fact that a player has too few or too many cards in his hand. But when there is another explanation, and it is an explanation consistent with reality on which all the players at the table are agreed, then the Director may not determine that there has been a defective trick when this is plainly not the case.

Suppose that the card is still on the floor. Is there now a defective trick?

If he states that he played the card to trick two, that it later fell to the floor, that he picked it up again and mistakenly replaced it in his hand, and that it has remained there ever since - and if the other players at the table corroborate this account - then of course Law 67 does not apply. There was no defective trick, since four cards were played to trick two. I see no reason that this should be so, nor am I prepared to accept a simple assertion that it is so. Suppose a player drops a card on the floor rather than putting it in the position specified by Law 65A. And suppose that had he placed the card in that position it would have constituted a revoke. May the player claim that he did not in fact revoke because he has not in fact played the card?

I am not sure I follow this. In both cases, ♥3 has been played to the appropriate trick (the ninth in the first scenario, the second in the second) because declarer called for it from dummy. The effect is the same as if dummy had moved ♥3 among his played cards, but failed to turn it face down. This is a violation of law 65A, but there is no prescribed rectification for such a violation, so there seems to me no reason why ♥3 should not simply be turned over once it is discovered that it hasn't been, and the players should not simply get on with it. Certainly there is no defective trick - four cards have been played to each and every trick.

It is, I suppose, possible that the Spring Foursomes will not become a strong event until the beginning of next month. But if you can respond 1NT to 1♠ (5+ cards) with all of: ♠Qxx ♥x ♦Kxxxxx ♣xxx ♠x ♥AQxx ♦KJxxx ♣Qxx ♠xx ♥Axxx ♦Jxxx ♣xxx then I would say you need to alert it, rather than assume that your opponents play the same way you do.

An alert of a natural and non-forcing 2♦ overcall is an incorrect explanation.

If he could double for penalty on the auction 1♣ - 2♦ (natural) - pass - 3♥ (whatever that means by a passed hand), but not on the auction 1♣ - 2♦ (majors) - pass - 3♥, then his side may very well have been damaged by South's incorrect explanation. I don't expect anyone asked what South's 3♥ would have meant in response to a natural weak jump overcall. But someone should have done. Then, it might not have been so "impossible" to decide on an outcome.

Well, at least we are now agreed to a large extent on the semantics. Bidding judgement is a matter on which we may never agree, and of course it is not easy to place oneself in the position of this North-South pair and say what they might do on any given collection. But I have just dealt myself 200 hands on which I would open 1♣ and rebid 2♣ over a double of 1♠. They include, on the evidence of the actual hand, weak no trumps with five clubs and no spade guard - it occurred to me to wonder what this South would have rebid with a low spade instead of a low club, but I did not actually modify the simulation to include 3=3=3=4 hands. I would certainly pass my own second double on exactly four of the 200; I might pass it on another eight but only with the opponents vulnerable at matchpoints. I would certainly take out the double on the remaining 188 hands. How "expected" is "expected"?

Oh, I know he's a sensible enough fellow really, even if he does live in Surrey. At university we used to play a convention called DPOI, which our opponents always thought was a misprint. It wasn't: it meant that if the bidding went such as 1♠ - pass - pass - double - 2♠, advancer's double was responsive unless opener was stupid (if we hadn't heard of you, you were presumed stupid, as indeed you generally were if we had). The acronym stood for Double Penalty Of Idiots.

I am not quite sure I follow this. Perhaps the regulation is circular, in that it says a takeout double is one that the doubler expects his partner to take out. It says a lot of other nonsense as well - try telling Brogeland that when he doubles a 1♥ opening with ♠AJxx ♥Jxx ♦Axx ♣Qxx that he isn't playing this as a takeout double according to the English Bridge Union, so his partner had better alert. More formally, then: there is some finite set S of hands with which a player will open 1♣ and rebid 2♣ after a takeout double of 1♠; for any hand h, the presumption is that both members of the North-South partnership can say whether h is a member of S; a subsequent double of 2♠ is played by the partnership as, and should be described by the partnership as, a "takeout double" iff a sufficiently large percentage of the hands in S would bid over the second double. The present sample (of one such hand h) does not provide anything like enough evidence to support the notion that the percentage of hands in S that would bid over the second double is insufficiently large to fulfil the criterion above.

Important not to be careless here. bluejak's phrasing is fine, but I remember the senior High Court judge who usually plays rubber bridge at TGRs, but one day found himself substituting in a teams match. Asked brusquely "your honour leads?" he replied "I lead fourth highest, and it's My Lord, not Your Honour."

If you live as humans do, it will be the end of you. James Thurber

Reading the original post more carefully, I observe that South explained North's double as "he wants me to bid". You know my methods, Watson...

I am not sure that "many posters" think South should pass on the actual hand; initially at any rate, quite a few posters seemed to think that it was inconsistent for South to describe North's second double as "takeout" and then pass on the actual hand. One of those posters seemed to think it sufficiently inconsistent that South could be found guilty of fielding a misbid, so that East-West would actually receive an adjusted score. As to what I would take out the takeout double with: if I had four diamonds and had been unable or unwilling to bid 2♦ at my first turn because that showed a reverse (a method employed by many world-class partnerships), I would almost always bid; if I were an Italian World Champion I would bid almost whatever I had, because that is the way they play; if I were playing with jallerton I would contemplate the paucity of my trump stack and bid 2NT (an obvious scramble showing three, if not four or five, places to play); if I had ♠xx ♥Axx ♦Jx ♣KQJxxx I would bid 3♣. But if I were an ordinary Joe playing with another ordinary Joe such as myself (admittedly not allowed in the Portland Pairs, nor in jurisdictions where cloning is illegal) I would regard an average takeout double as roughly ♠xxx ♥KJxx ♦AKQx ♣xx, and I would explain it as takeout and then pass it (we don't have a game; the vulnerable opponents are very likely down at least one in two spades doubled; yet I really did not want me to pass with the vast majority of hands with which I would open 1♣ and rebid 2♣, since those would not contain three fast tricks and only five clubs). I would almost certainly not double at my second turn with ♠xx ♥KJxx ♦AQxxx ♣xx, but if I did (as North) and passed (as South) and the contract made, I am sure that I would still be on speaking terms with myself afterwards - I might even buy myself a drink. Admittedly, this has something to do with the fact that I would never double twice (or even once) with such as ♠x ♥KJxxx ♦AQxxx ♣xx - but to campboy or to mycroft or to bluejak or to the pettifogger who apparently sat West at the table, this is what North "should" or "must" have for the actual sequence. Admittedly also, this has something to do with the fact that North had a hand unique in my experience: he would double if it were for penalty, or for takeout, or anything else from the very highest point on the continuum to the very lowest. But I cannot help that: as I said some time ago, what the Director ought to have done is to ask South why South explained the double as takeout and then didn't take it out. I don't know whether South was the male or the female member of the pair in question, but if the latter, maybe she and I should play in the Portland Pairs sometime. We seem to understand bidding.

This looks more like one of lamford's made-up hands than a real one, but this does not matter. It also looks like the canonical "reverse hesitation", where one doubles slowly to stop partner bidding. The standard approach to that is "the Laws don't provide a remedy other than watching the pair in question to see whether or not they do it again". This approach is unsatisfactory for obvious reasons. If this occurred in reality, I would be inclined to treat South's arguments with a degree of scepticism - but they could be honest; one would need to be the Director or the AC at the time in order to make a judgement. But there is obviously a potential irregularity: South may have been using the tempo of his pass to communicate (illegally) to North the message "don't pull this".

With the club suit having presumably undergone some genetic modification.

Of course all doubles aren't for takeout. When one passes a takeout double, the implication is that "even though partner really wants me to bid and really doesn't want me to pass, I think we will score better if I pass". It could certainly be wrong to pass out 4♥ doubled with a 2=4=4=3 Yarborough; partner might have a 4=0=5=4 27-count with no jacks, and been about to raise whichever suit we bid to seven. But cases of the kind are rare; most of the time he won't have that, and we'll score less badly if I pass than we will if I don't. The "assumptions you need to make about partner's hand" are that on average, he'll have an average takeout double. If facing one of those you think it very likely that you will do better by passing than bidding, you explain double as "takeout" and you pass it.

Would normally say "at trick one, low-card leads are third and fifth, honour-card leads are [whatever they are]". Alternatively, when partner leads a speculative king from king-doubleton to declarer's ace with dummy holding QJ10, it is permissible to reply "top of nothing".

The only problem would be if you thought the guy was bidding slowly in order to give partner time to recount his key cards (perhaps surprised to find so few opposite). Difficult to prove, though, even if you suspected it.

Of course not. But the point is this: "very suitable for defence" does not mean "I can beat this contract in my own hand." What it means is "it is very likely that if I pass and we defend, we will score better than if I bid and we don't", even if "better" means minus 690 instead of minus 1100. You (and others) have to get away from the idea that passing a takeout double is something you should do only with a trump stack. It isn't; nor is a takeout double defined (in the EBU regulations or anywhere else) as "a double that is passed only with a trump stack".

Partner doubles 4♥ for takeout. If I would pass - as I would - with ♠32 ♥5432 ♦5432 ♣432 should I, on enquiry, explain his double as "competitive"?

I do not believe that I have expressed any view at all - I have merely asked some questions to which I do not know the answers. Those questions have to do with whether information acquired by a player solely as a result of his own infraction (in some cases) or lapse of memory (in other cases) is authorised to that player. In the matter of the differences between the obligations placed on players by Law 16 and the obligations placed on players by Law 73, here I say nothing except what Hilaire Belloc said (on a different topic, to be sure): The question's very much too wide, And much too round, and much too hollow, And learned men on either side Use arguments I cannot follow. But when those learned men are such as jallerton and lamford and bluejak, I am aware that I should try to follow their arguments and come to some conclusion. I promise to do so, although I do not at present see their relevance to this particular case.

There seems to be a school of thought, based in Surrey with offshoots in the Wirral, that what the OB really ought to say is this: 4H2 A penalty double promises at least four trump tricks. 4H6 A takeout double will be passed only if partner has at least four trump tricks. It ain't so, Joe. A takeout double will be passed only if partner has "a hand very suitable for defence in the context of what he can be expected to hold for his actions (if any) to date". That doesn't mean four trump tricks, although it would be nice if he had them - it certainly extends to ace-king-ace by way of high cards, only five cards in a suit he has rebid, and no more than three cards in either of the unbid suits in which the doubler is supposed to have length. I confess myself baffled by talk of 1=5=5=2 opposite. If I had 1=5=5=2 with enough strength to force partner to bid at the three level, and it went 1♣ opposite - 1♠ to my right, I'd bid 2♥ - wouldn't you?

Yes - it looks like a standard case of unauthorised panic. No - as Poky and I have both remarked, when both opponents have shown opening bids and partner bids 2♥ over what is currently 2♦ doubled, it is not logical (unless you consider suicide logical) to assume that he is doing so constructively. If South had not doubled 2♦, or if North had explained South's double as "negative - takeout of diamonds, may be weak or strong, nothing specific as to distribution" then 3♥ would come into the reckoning as a LA. No - some portion of players might also consider 4♥, and some of them might choose it, in which case a weighted score would be appropriate. Of course, such players should also have their belts and any sharp objects in their possession removed, and their appointed custodians should look in on them hourly.

There is of course a further complication, which has not been touched on yet. And if you thought the concept of "reverse UI" was complicated, you should not even bother to read what follows, because you will not understand it. In the actual case, assume that East-West's agreement about 2♦ is "natural". Now East has simply indulged in the customary unauthorised panic when he bid 3♦, and of course that call is cancelled. East has received the information from North-South that both of them have opening bids - North opened the bidding, and South's double apparently showed 11-13. So, East is entitled to assume that West is merely pre-rescuing a possible contract of 2♦ doubled, not making a constructive bid of 2♥; he will pass 2♥ and whatever adjustment is given will follow from his pass. But is East entitled to that information? Unless South's double of a natural 2♦ would also show an opening bid, East would not be allowed to know that South had one - then, of course, West might or might not be bidding hearts constructively, and a heart raise would certainly come into the reckoning as a logical alternative to pass. Did anyone ask North-South what South's double of a natural overcall would be? That is the easy part. Now assume that East-West's agreement is in fact Michaels - East forgot when he made his bid. In that case, East may claim that he really is entitled to the information that both his opponents have opening bids, and therefore the knowledge (or at any rate the inference) that West has rubbish with long hearts and no diamonds. The Director rules on that basis, and North-South say this to the Appeals Committee: "If we had been playing with screens, East would have told us that 2♦ was natural. Then, we wouldn't have told him that South had an opening bid, because that's not how we play over a natural overcall. Instead, we'd have told him that South had a negative double - takeout of diamonds, not necessarily very many points, nothing specific as to major-suit distribution, could be weakish with long clubs and a four-card major. East would have had to entertain the possibility that West was bidding hearts constructively, and it would be a logical alternative for him to raise hearts." You are the Appeals Committee. How do you rule? For full credit, say also how the Director should rule if East-West's actual agreement about 2♦ was "undiscussed".