Monday ruling

[Phil]

From the Monday IMP game at Laguna Woods:

 

[hv=d=e&v=e&n=sqxhjtxdaqxxctxxx&w=saxxxhaxxxd8xxcxx&e=skjxxhxxxdkjtxckq&s=stxxhkqxdxxcajxxx]399|300|Scoring: IMP

1D - 1N* - dbl^ - Pass**

Pass - 2C***-pass - pass

dbl^^- pass - 2D - 3C - all pass

[/hv]

 

Result: -50 in 3♣.

 

Some explanations:

 

* - "Overcall Structure" - 1N shows a takeout double but (obviously) can be lighter than standard.

 

^ - presumably penalty

 

** - denies 5 of a suit or four spades

 

*** - promises 5 or 6.

 

^^ - very slow double (agreed to at the time).

 

The director was called after the board was played. I was the declarer. I contended that the 2♦ call was not a LA after the slow double.

 

The defenders countered that East's double was not 'penalty' in spite of the fact that West had made a strength showing double, which made West's pull clear. They didn't say East's x was takeout double, but rather more DSIP since he was sitting 'under' the bidder. . The director agreed and the table result stood.

 

A few questions:

 

1. Do you agree with the Director's ruling?

 

2. Obviously my partner and I play some very non-standard methods. How much latitude toward extra time in the bidding should be given to opponents that have to contend with non-standard methods?

 

3. To me, the explanation of the slow double seemed very self-serving without documentation. Do you agree?

[rogerclee]

1) No, the slowness of the double expresses doubt about 2♣x and east has a normal pass opposite a penalty double. The tempo makes it clear that west did not feel he had a clear auction or was unsure about the partnership meaning of a double. Both of these things make pulling more attractive.

 

2) They should bid in tempo and should consistently take about 5 seconds to make a call over something like 1NT.

 

3) I agree, with no documentation the explanation is self-serving. In fact without discussion I would assume this is penalty, as in a redouble situation.

[crazy4hoop]

1.) No

 

2.) A little lattitude, maybe something like what rogerclee suggests.

 

3.) Yes, it's self-serving. My only guess is that East felt he couldn't pass the hand out after his partner doubled 1NT. I suppose he could have bid 2♠ unless he thought he needed more shape for that but to me that doesn't make a lot of sense since I'm not sure what is East supposed to do when he actually has a penalty double. Oh yes I do, he should double (at least I think he should). I certainly think West should be allowed to pull if the double were in tempo but I also think he would be more inclined to leave the double in had it been made in tempo. I might even go so far as to say this player is ethically bound to leave in the double but admit I might very well be wrong in this regard.

[hanp]

3) I have never seen a pair at a club game have documentation for an auction such as this one. Of course the statement is selve-serving.

 

2) The double was several rounds into the auction and at this point you were just playing bridge, it had little to do with the unusual situation.

 

1) No. The slow double suggests pulling and pass is probably a logical alternative. I am willing to bet that east would have passed a confident double.

[Codo]

I am surprised.

 

Why is this double a penalty double? It was obviously not for the doubler. And it was not for his partner.

That all of you play it as a penalty double is no evidence that they must too.

 

This is NOT a redouble situation. There had been no redouble. And obviously (look at the cards) the double of 1 NT does not have the same strength as a redouble of a take out double. It was like the double of a real 1 NT bid: 8+ HCPS.

 

 

So what was he thinking about? He knows that they have the majority of the points but no real fit. He knows that you have at least a 5 card suit. He knows that your partners hand is fairly balanced, so that you will have at least a 5-2 fit, maybe much more.

 

To get all these informations together takes some time. So now he is in the spotlight. What will X show? Shall he just pass? What did the pass of his partner show? Was it forcing? May he have a penalty pass? He may have up to 4 clubs.

 

 

So bottomline: I would give him very much leeway for his BIT, but when I had been convinced at the table that the BIT was even longer then that, I had to decide that 2 ♦ was no LA.

[hanp]

Whether we play that this double is penalty or not is not relevant.

 

If this is a normal hand for the double, why did they think for so long? Obviously they were afraid that partner would pass with the wrong hand. And the long pause clearly suggests this.

 

Also, the question is not whether 2D is a logical alternative, the question is whether pass is a logical alternative!

[Trinidad]

I have the vague idea that many get the auction wrong. The last double was made by East and taken out by West.

 

I think it would help if auctions would be posted in the standard format West-North-East-South, putting West's bids on the left of East's bids.

 

I don't have any problem with West taking out East's double of 2♣. I think it is an obvious action. It could only be right to pass if East is 4-4 in the minors. In that case, according to the explanations by NS, North must be exactly 3442 (otherwise he wouldn't have passed). Thus, South would be 3325 (assuming that NS don't bid 1NT on (24)25 hands) and East would be 3244. That puts so many constraints on the hands that it just isn't very likely that East is 44 in the minors.

 

I agree with the TD that it doesn't make much sense to assume that East's double is pure penalty. It makes sense to play it as an invitation to penalize, in view of West's earlier double. When west has the worst possible club holding that he could have for his bidding, it is obvious to me to decline the invitation and bid 2♦.

 

As an aside, I don't understand the explanation of 2♣. Why does 2♣ promise 5 or 6 clubs? What would South bid with e.g. a 4324 distribution?

 

Rik

[gnasher]

From West's point of view, why can't the shapes be

        3352

4432         3244

        3415

 

Regarding other comments:

 

- "Self-serving" doesn't mean the same as "untrue". If the defenders say that double isn't for penalties, and the director or appeals committee doubts this statement, they should ask questions such as: When was this agreement made? What do you do in related sequences like 1x dbl rdbl, 1x 2x dbl, 1NT 2x [art] dbl? Why is this different?

 

- East can take as long as he likes over his calls, but if his tempo would be different for a penalty double than for a takeout double, that tempo variation transmits UI. The unusual nature of the auction may increase the amount of time that we expect East to take in making any call, but there's no question of disregarding the UI transmitted by varying from the tempo that would be normal for this auction.

 

- East's pause may have been because he was trying to remember their agreement about this specific sequence, or trying to work out which general agreements applied to this sequence. We can't assume that the pause means that the double was non-systemic. A good way to find out what he was thinking about is to ask him.

[Phil]

As an aside, I don't understand the explanation of 2♣. Why does 2♣ promise 5 or 6 clubs? What would South bid with e.g. a 4324 distribution?

 

Rik

South would xx.

[Gerben42]

I think this one is terribly complicated, but I'm with Andy here. The slow dbl might have been "I have a penalty Dbl but I had to think if this Dbl is penalty". It's normal to think about things like that in situations you've never been in before. I for one have never encountered this "overcall structure" except in Internet posts by people who claim it's really great.

[TimG]

The director was called after the board was played. I was the declarer. I contended that the 2♦ call was not a LA after the slow double.

Surely 2♦ is a logical alternative. The question is whether pass is also a logical alternative and whether the break in tempo suggested 2♦ over pass. Right?

 

Was west's pass of 2♣ forcing? Would west's double of 2C have been for penalty or takeout?

 

In my default set of system notes, it says that doubles of the opponents at the two-level when they have found a fit are for takeout. As east in the actual hand, I'd have to think for a few seconds to determine whether this auction qualified as a fit auction. On this auction, it may be just as bad to make a takeout double with 3244 shape as a penalty double with 4342 shape -- the doubt expressed by the break in tempo does not to me clearly mean the double is not penalty. And, I think there would be complaints if a slow penalty double was passed by west who had a logical alternative in 2♦.

 

It seems to me that if EW don't have firm agreements here, take a few seconds to work things out (break tempo) and get it right, there will always be a case for them to be ruled against because there is no definitive way to play the double in this situation. And, whatever they say in their defense will be considered self serving.

 

So, I do think they should be given a few more seconds than normal before it is determined that there has been a break in tempo. (I'm not disputing that there was a break in tempo, just addressing your question #2.)

[JoAnneM]

Must be my age showing but I can't figure out who opened the bidding. :( If I knew then everything might make sense.

[TimG]

Must be my age showing but I can't figure out who opened the bidding.  :(  If I knew then everything might make sense.

From the opening post: "Dealer: East."

[JoAnneM]

Senior moment, thx. Dealer and made the first bid just don't sound the same to me anymore. lol

[JoAnneM]

You don't get to call the Director "after the hand was played". Would you have called him if you had made the contract? That is called "double dipping". You call the Director at the time of the hesitation, or the ensuing bid. I would make no adjustment.

[blackshoe]

You don't get to call the Director "after the hand was played". Would you have called him if you had made the contract? That is called "double dipping". You call the Director at the time of the hesitation, or the ensuing bid. I would make no adjustment.

Nonsense. Read Law 81C3.

 

Law 16 says, inter alia, that when you believe something has occurred which may convey UI between opponents (such as a BIT) you may announce that you "reserve your right" to call the TD later, but failure to do that "is not wrong", so it should not jeopardize your right to a score adjustment, much less a ruling. Law 16 also says that the proper time to call the TD when you believe UI may have been used is "when play ends". That said, if you call at a later time, you will get a ruling (if the TD is competent) but you may not get the one you want, because the longer you wait, the harder it may be for the TD to determine what actually happened.

[Phil]

You don't get to call the Director "after the hand was played". Would you have called him if you had made the contract? That is called "double dipping". You call the Director at the time of the hesitation, or the ensuing bid. I would make no adjustment.

We reserved rights at the time of the hesitation which has been allowable since last September.

 

And, yeah, I could have called the director after I made the hand since my +110 would have been +280 :)

[Lobowolf]

From West's point of view, why can't the shapes be

        3352

4432         3244

        3415

Because North has denied a 5-card suit.

 

ok, ok, maybe dealer's suit doesn't count.

[Phil]

From West's point of view, why can't the shapes be

        3352

4432         3244

        3415

Because North has denied a 5-card suit.

 

ok, ok, maybe dealer's suit doesn't count.

It doesn't (thought that was obvious...).

 

Strangely enough 2♦ does promise diamonds however - but 7.

[xcurt]

Do EW open 1D with xx45?

[awm]

1) I think the director was too quick to rule. He needs to get more evidence about how this pair plays doubles in similar situations. Perhaps the easiest one is if 1NT was natural and the auction proceeded in the same way.

 

2) I cannot understand why overcall structure is not a pre-alert. It seems very much to fall under the set of "methods which may be fundamentally unfamiliar to opponents." Having heard at least one pair explain about the many good boards they get from the auction 1X-1NT!-Redouble only confirms this impression. With that said, I would think that any "extra time" allocated for opponents would be at first turn after the alerted 1NT call, rather than in a balancing situation like this one.

 

3) Sure it's self-serving, but agree that does not mean "untrue." Then again, it seems like the director just took their explanation at face value without any further questions, which is wrong. Why did west not try to find a major fit opposite a "takeout" or "do something" double? Was this a forcing auction (and if not, why didn't east pass)? What would they play here if 1NT had been natural?

[marcD]

Whether we play that this double is penalty or not is not relevant.

 

If this is a normal hand for the double, why did they think for so long? Obviously they were afraid that partner would pass with the wrong hand. And the long pause clearly suggests this.

 

Also, the question is not whether 2D is a logical alternative, the question is whether pass is a logical alternative!

I am with Gerben on this one . Disagree with the message below. You cannot expect this pair to have formally agreed to a defense in this situation . I think part of the thinking from East could be to figure out which more common situation is this hand like : does the 1st round double induce a force (like a redouble ) answer no, is this to be treated like a delayed 2♣ overcall (DBL takeout), would take out by partner be takeout , so his pass could be for penalties and i am suppose to double etc (I guess not).

 

It would help to know whether this was a short match or not and whether pre-alert was used . barring that I would give EW the benefit of the doubt. The only thing W can infer from his partner hesitation is that E has no natural bid

 

By the way I would hesitate with E hand too : My choice would be between pass and dbl (points/DSIP). (2♣ by my partner on the 1st round would have been takeout, Dbl shows points, dbl second round by west would have been penalty). It is a matter of style but do not think penalty dbl by East is an option

[Phil]

1) I think the director was too quick to rule. He needs to get more evidence about how this pair plays doubles in similar situations. Perhaps the easiest one is if 1NT was natural and the auction proceeded in the same way.

 

2) I cannot understand why overcall structure is not a pre-alert. It seems very much to fall under the set of "methods which may be fundamentally unfamiliar to opponents." Having heard at least one pair explain about the many good boards they get from the auction 1X-1NT!-Redouble only confirms this impression. With that said, I would think that any "extra time" allocated for opponents would be at first turn after the alerted 1NT call, rather than in a balancing situation like this one.

 

3) Sure it's self-serving, but agree that does not mean "untrue." Then again, it seems like the director just took their explanation at face value without any further questions, which is wrong. Why did west not try to find a major fit opposite a "takeout" or "do something" double? Was this a forcing auction (and if not, why didn't east pass)? What would they play here if 1NT had been natural?

Adam:

 

Harvey and I do pre-alert OS. We aren't required to but we do in all team matches. We try to in pair games to, but its tougher since you don't have the time you do in teams.

 

When the director came over I did ask the opponents what a parallel auction would mean:

 

1♦ - double - rdbl - pass

pass - 1/2x - pass - pass

dbl

 

and frankly I didn't get a straight answer. The director (who was running a 12 table team game concurrently with a NLM 10 table tg) just seemed to want to get a ruling that the players were content with and move on.

 

I don't think a natural 1N really applies here, and this is one of the misconceptions people have when defending OS.

[awm]

There is a general situation something like the following:

 

(1) We have made a double (or redouble) indicating that our side has a majority of the values.

(2) The opponents remove the doubled contract to a suit.

(3) The person on our side who is "in front of" the opponent with the suit doubles.

 

There are many such situations in standard bridge, for example:

 

1♦-X-XX-P

P-2♣-P-P-X

 

1♦-1NT-X-P

P-2♣-P-P-X

 

1♦-2♦-X-P

P-2♥-P-P-X

(assuming the first double is desire to penalize)

 

1NT-X(penalty)-P-P

2m-P-P-X

 

It seems normal to assume that double has the same meaning in all of the above situations. My impression is that the standard agreement is for all of these to be penalty, but it is certainly possible to play that they are takeout. Nonetheless, without clear agreements to the contrary I would tend to assume that all these doubles have the same meaning, since the situation is more or less the same. So when a situation like the one at the table occurs (which the opponents are highly unlikely to have discussed in particular) I would tend to ask about their agreements in the similar situations above. If they play all those doubles as penalty, then I would tend to believe that their claim that double is takeout (or DSIP) in this situation is fatuous. If they agree that all the above doubles are for takeout, then I would tend to believe them that this double is takeout also (or that takeout is a logical enough interpretation given their general agreements that leaving the double in with two small clubs is not a LA).

[MFA]

Yes, I'm inclined to agree with the director's ruling. Some detective work from his side is in order though. Playing non-penalty doubles in this situation sounds fairly normal to me (although surely not the majority agreement), so I would need some real evidence to brush aside the players' explanations as self serving.

 

Sure, more leeway after unusual methods. Not just to be nice, but in general huddles are just not quite as telling when the confusion factors in. One often just has to realize what's going on, before making a bid, however obvious this bid may be/seem when one reaches the evaluation fase of the problem. So the marginal cases should pass.

 

I'm impressed that this Brown Sticker Convention is allowed in the first place in some Monday night game. But ACBL rules never stop to amaze me.

 

I'm always supporting the view that one can liberaly call the director and this without implying anything bad. This surely also applies her. As a personal preference, though, I would go a little easy on calling the TD after my opponents' huddles in these sequences, if I were having such a spicy entry on my Monday night menu.