Adjustment questions XII

[xx1943]

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=skqt9632hk5dt3c93&w=shjt9432da865cak8&e=saj8754hqdq72cq76&s=sha876dkj94cjt542]399|300|Scoring: MP

SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST

pass... 1♥.... 3♠.... X

pass... pass.. pass[/hv]

 

Result: 3♠ doubled - 3 = 800

 

South called me at the table while playing the next board and complained, that EAST doubled after long thinking and therefore was a UI.

 

NORTH confirmed SOUTHs statement.

I asked EAST and WEST

(1) Wether there was an agreement about how high doubles were negative

(2) Wether EAST was thinking a long time before the double.

 

WEST answered (1): We play my card (SAYC). I thought the X for penalties not negative. WEST didn't answer (2).

 

EAST reviled at me, that I should him not distract, while playing the next hand.

He answered wether to (1) nor to (2).

 

My questions are now:

 

(1) What is the right decision (poll above)

(2) What would the right decision be, if EAST and WEST would swear, there were no abnormal delay before the double.

(3) Playing SAYC, is this double negative?

 

Regards

 

Al

[luis]

Disqualify EW from the competition and suspend them for some reasonable period of time.

If you can put them in jail that may work too.

[inquiry]

If they are playing sayc, the stated range for negative double is through 2♠ (see this link for ACBL's booklet on SAYC ACBL SAYC booklet .

 

So first question you have to ask, is what does double mean? West answer was that they played his card (SAYC), and that at the three level double was for penalty. That is consistent with 1) the fellows profile, 2) his partner's action, and 3) West's own action.

 

In fact, given the facts, a long hesitiation where double is penatly and then double, WEST did the right thing by passing. Given that double is for penalty, EAST could have doubled in a flash (no problem finding the penalty double). The fact that he thought and thought before making the double would suggest uncertanty or concern about the double. Given the possibility that partner was woried about doubling 3♠ West hand with a void is more likely to want to pull than sit.

 

Now as to the question of EW action. West did everything right. He bid right, he answered your question right. East on the other hand bid right, but his table attitude towards a director is totally unacceptable. I think some disciplinary action (but not changing the result on this board) is called for.

 

Ben

[McBruce]

Double is for penalties in SAYC. People who wait until after the auction has ended on the next board to call the Director don't exactly get the benefit of my doubt. :D

[inquiry]

BTW, this hand caused other troubles. At one table, the bidding went...

 

South .West North East

1♦......1♥..1♠..Pass

Pass...2♦.. all pass

 

What do you think of south's pass of a forcing (at least not alerted 1♠? If you were EW and just earned about 30% on this auction for playing in 2♦, would you report it to the director, and what would your complaint be? How couold a director rule on this thing?

 

Being a director is just no fun at times... you guys keep up the good work. :-)

 

BTW, with McBruce and I agreeing on something for a change, can there be any question that let the score stand is right... :-) :-) :-)

 

Ben

[luis]

I'm not sure if you can let the score stand so clearly. First of all did they have a CC? If so did the CC say negative doubles where up to 2s only?

If they didn't have a CC then they can't probe that the double is not negative or can be assumed as negative by pd therefore 4d is a logical alternative to pass and the score must be adjusted.

 

Luis

[inquiry]

I'm not sure if you can let the score stand so clearly. First of all did they have a CC? If so did the CC say negative doubles where up to 2s only?

If they didn't have a CC then they can't probe that the double is not negative or can be assumed as negative by pd therefore 4d is a logical alternative to pass and the score must be adjusted.

Well, the TD could ahve asked NS if EW had announced SAYC or "my profile" at the start of the round. He could check earlier rounds (this was round 3) to see if SAYC was announced. But I would accept the word of WEST who had SAYC on his profile (BTW, you you play SAYC you can load BridgeBASE basic CC which is essentially sayc, and shows negative double through... tada...2♠).

 

North, opposite a passed hand, and vul at imps, and with full knowledge of the risk, choose a preemptive 3♠ overcall. He got caught out speeding, for his less than ideal 3♠ bid. Unlucky for him. EW are playing an inferior method, but on this hand, their method is just perfect for issuing suitable punishment.

 

So, even if EW didn't have a cc filled out, I would let the result stand. This isn't even close given the information provided. After the hesitation, and then double, I would penalize the pull of 3♠X not the other way around, when they are playing SAYC. The way you rule, WEST can't make a winning action after EAST's hesitation (and over a preempt, you should get some time to think of course).

 

Let's imagine it went P-1H-3S-X (double extremely fast).. would you now rule against WEST if he passed? Does the speed suggest, I got them, don't pull even with void? I think a few second think, then double is right. Skip bid warnings do serve a useful purpose.

 

Ben

[luis]

I'm not sure if you can let the score stand so clearly. First of all did they have a CC? If so did the CC say negative doubles where up to 2s only?

If they didn't have a CC then they can't probe that the double is not negative or can be assumed as negative by pd therefore 4d is a logical alternative to pass and the score must be adjusted.

Well, the TD could ahve asked NS if EW had announced SAYC or "my profile" at the start of the round. He could check earlier rounds (this was round 3) to see if SAYC was announced. But I would accept the word of WEST who had SAYC on his profile (BTW, you you play SAYC you can load BridgeBASE basic CC which is essentially sayc, and shows negative double through... tada...2♠).

 

North, opposite a passed hand, and vul at imps, and with full knowledge of the risk, choose a preemptive 3♠ overcall. He got caught out speeding, for his less than ideal 3♠ bid. Unlucky for him. EW are playing an inferior method, but on this hand, their method is just perfect for issuing suitable punishment.

 

So, even if EW didn't have a cc filled out, I would let the result stand. This isn't even close given the information provided. After the hesitation, and then double, I would penalize the pull of 3♠X not the other way around, when they are playing SAYC. The way you rule, WEST can't make a winning action after EAST's hesitation (and over a preempt, you should get some time to think of course).

 

Let's imagine it went P-1H-3S-X (double extremely fast).. would you now rule against WEST if he passed? Does the speed suggest, I got them, don't pull even with void? I think a few second think, then double is right. Skip bid warnings do serve a useful purpose.

 

Ben

I think you are wrong in this Ben:

 

"So, even if EW didn't have a cc filled out, I would let the result stand. This isn't even close given the information provided. After the hesitation, and then double, I would penalize the pull of 3♠X not the other way around, when they are playing SAYC. The way you rule, WEST can't make a winning action after EAST's hesitation (and over a preempt, you should get some time to think of course)."

 

The question is not if you penalize the pull or the pass, you must adjust if either of those is a logical alternative to the winning action. On the posted circunstances I think 4d is a logical alternative to pass so I'd adjust the score without hesitation.

 

And you are right, west can't make a winning action after EAST's hesitation, it's the rule.

[inquiry]

I think you are wrong in this Ben: (SNIP)

 

And you are right, west can't make a winning action after EAST's hesitation, it's the rule.

Luis, when will you learn that I am almost never wrong?

 

Here is what the Laws of bridge say....

 

LAW 73D. Variations in Tempo or Manner

1. Inadvertent Variations It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety, but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.

 

F. Violation of Proprieties When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent,

1. Player Acts on Unauthorised Information if the Director determines that a player chose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score (see Law 16).

 

McBruce is techanically right about the very late call to the director. Because Law 16 states... 1. When [uI] Is Given When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he may, immediately announce that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorised information might have been conveyed).

2. When Illegal Alternative Is Chosen When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director forthwith. The Director shall require the auction and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage.

 

However, unlike McBruce, I am not such a stickler for online rules, as the NS pair may not know about reserving the right and calling immediately.

 

But this gets back to the issue of the hesitation followed by what is clearly a penalty double. What would a hesitatation and then double suggest? Doubt about the double. Maybe East was thinking of biddign 3NT, maybe raising on doubleton honor in ♥, maybe bidding a minor, maybe passing. On line, he may have been looking at the results of the last hand or just have a bad connection. But the hesitation suggest (if it is UI) about the penalty double being the correct action. If East express doubt, then west is REALLY doubtful. In fact, the only legal bid WEST can make after the hesitation is to pass the penalty double. This is the lawful, correct bid, and should not be punished when it turns out right. As the law clearly states. What is suggested by the hestitation is DOUBT that double is the right call... so pulling would be illegal, imo.

 

As an aside, I remember a letter Eric Kokish wrote to the BridgeWorld in the early 1980's on this very subject, taking to task a ruling where a hesitation and then normal action incorrectly had resulted in an adjusted score. Eric was right then, and McBruce (and I) are right now.

 

Ben

[mpefritz]

Could the pause be someone checking to see how high negative doubles go in SAYC? Maybe the player did a quick web search to check if he could double for penalties or had to pass with his hand. The delay was probably in making the correct SAYC call. While a delay to check a CC would be inappropriate (and counter to the LAWS, I believe) in ftf settings, online pick up players or practicing partnerships have ccs available to review, and if not, have the internet to consult.

 

Only pulling the double would be suggested by a pause if playing SAYC.

 

fritz

 

(can I put in my 2 cents worth in BB$ ?)

[1eyedjack]

Say you are playing penalty doubles. And you are confident that partner is on the same wavelength. And you have a penalty double hand. And I mean you REALLY have a penalty double hand. And then some. You are concerned that partner may pull the double despite that he understands it to be penalty (it has been known to happen, and it has been known to be the right move). How can you be absolutely sure that partner will not pull it? Answer: hesitate before the double.

 

This sort of behaviour is of course totally illegal, and I am not suggesting that anyone should practice it. But based on the other answers in this thread it would appear that he gets away with it, when partner (as expected having received the UI) takes the desired action and passes.

 

Comments?

[inquiry]

How can you be absolutely sure that partner will not pull it? Answer: hesitate before the double.

 

Comments?

This is backwards. How can you be sure partner doesn't pull your double? Double in a flash (and loudly if you can, fist slamming on table... ). The hestitation suggest you have something to think about.

 

Now the unethical player, who wants to make it very hard for his partner to ethically pull the double, would hesitatie, a long, long, long time. Here, over the penalty double your parnter has no choice to but pass. In this scenario, the long hesitator should be of course punsihed. For this isn't UI, but insteaad intentional cheating....But the long hesitator would have to know he has a very eitical partner.....

 

Ben

[1eyedjack]

Now the unethical player, who wants to make it very hard for his partner to ethically pull the double, would hesitatie, a long, long, long time.

Umm. Is that not exactly what I said?

[inquiry]

Now the unethical player, who wants to make it very hard for his partner to ethically pull the double, would hesitatie, a long, long, long time.

Umm. Is that not exactly what I said?

Yes, I know that is not what you said. What you said was backwards. A hesitation suggest uncertainty, yet you suggested to get partner to leave the double in you should hesitate. This is exactly wrong. The longer you hesitate, the more uncertain double is right (you must have other options to consider).

 

So I point out the dogma that the quick double suggest "I got you". This is why the skip bid was invented. To make whatever bid made after a preempt seem "reflective" rather than automatic (no quick bid of a new suit (showing easy bid), no quick pass (showing easy nothing), no quick double (to show "I got you").

 

Now, if you were really unethical, with a huge penalty double hand, and worried your partner might be void, you could go into long tank. Then double. But then this is clear cheating.. I think that is what I was trying to point out...

 

ben

[1eyedjack]

I think that is what I was trying to point out...

I equally think that that is what I was trying to point out.

All that you have done is say that you disagree with me, and then go on to repeat exactly what I have said

Someone please tell me I am not in a nightmare

[inquiry]

Ah.. so you were making a point about an cheater/unethical player. Sorry, I didn't pick that part of it up... I thought you were suggesting that a hesistation would "suggest" to partner that it would be wises to pass rather than pull, not that it would obligate him to pass rahter than pull...

 

Ben

[1eyedjack]

The point is not entirely irrelevant to the hand that initiated this thread. He cannot have a more obvious penalty double, and he must be concerned that his partner with a void might pull a double made in tempo.

 

It would be a serious accusation to make of East ... perhaps would require the evidence of repeated transgressions.

[annebabe]

If West took SO long to Double that East could NOT pull it, it had the same affect as the FAST double (as explained above.) Since No CCard was posted and No system announced, South asked West if he was in "Negative Double Range" or if West had a connection problem.

 

West answered "you can see my hand.... please dont ask stupid questions"

 

When TD asked West to answer Y or N about his slow double, West said "i do not come here to be stress out....further more have had two Adv from slow O's and a td adjustment of -1 when our 6 bid makes"

 

TD repeated question for the 3-4th time: Please answer Y or N .. did you take long time to Double?

 

West said "excuse me.. when question are ask when i am trying to keep track of cards being played... i will say what ever i feel ... the need to"

 

 

TD took West out of tourney at this point.

[inquiry]

From Anne's description, sounds she is at the table.

 

The TD may have made a mistake, if he took "west" *east I think as originally posted) out while the second hand was being played. I would take this player out, but I wuld wait until the end of the hand being played.

 

Now, as to Anne's questions. It sounds as if they came after she was dummy (and she was south in the posted hand). I say this because East told her he could see his hand. With all those "spades" it was obvious this wasn't a negative double (which broght the "stupid" remark I guess). The player's attitude and answers are not in the spirit of bridge.

 

The pass of 3♠X is 100% the only bid after the huddle. If the huddler is "cheating" to force his partner to pass, well, we have to deal with that in a totally different manner. He should be banned from all of bridge, not just BBO.

 

Ben

[hotShot]

First off all:

At online Bridge it is allways a question of how well a pair is familiar.

 

If not and that is usually the case, you are allways in doubt if you/your partner is knowing sayc well enough.

 

Second:

Well I don't think the penalty double is so clear.

East has 7 cards that are no trump, you can't count on the Q's to make a trick,

North is one trump longer and ♠ KQ will make a trick, that are 9 tricks.

How many tricks will a trump holding of AJ8754 make ?

 

I would want to count twice before i penalty double a contract , that gets avarded full game if made and i must be sure that we will not make 3SA which ist not impossible with long ♥ of my Partner and his values in the minors.

 

Yes with partners opening, somehow the contract should fall, but some hesitation is understandable.

 

Besides that, he made a bid that is right acording to the system mentioned, his partner acted conform to that system and description.

 

If the double is not negative, there is no logical alternative to pass.

 

So the score should stand.

 

The behavior of East is a different topic.

 

Robert

[Cascade]

If the pair are playing standard SAYC then double is for penalties and there is no adjustment.

 

If the pair are in fact playing negative doubles then I do not think that a slow negative double suggests to West to leave the double in. A slow pass might suggest to West to double.

 

Therefore I let the score stand.

 

In addition I would warn EW for their lack of complete cooperation in sorting this out. I have little tolerance for players that will not answer the TD. If this was a repeat offense then I would penalize them if possible.

[McBruce]

Just a note which might prove applicable to those playing in ACBL tourneys:

 

In Law 16A1, which deals with reserving one's rights to call the Director later, the Laws allow sponsoiring organizations some take-it-or-leave-it lattitude. The ACBL's choice is to not allow the practice of reserving one's rights, and they say that the Director should be called immediately when an opponent makes potentially damaging UI available to his partner.

 

Not sure why the ACBL has decided as such. It used to be a good way to deal with long pauses--if RHO paused before bidding, you would say "tempo break, all agree?" and in the usual case where all did agree you could just get on with the hand and worry about damage later. Now the TD comes a running every time, and bridge lawyers can make the game take forever.

 

As for those who want damage, let's assume that the pair was playing 3♠ as a negative double and it was an ironclad agreement. Where is the damage? Surely nobody is saying that passing a negative double is illegal. It is this alleged hesitation that the TD was never told about until well into the next hand that seems to be leading people to Law 16. I think that whatever version of L16A1 is on in your area, halfway through the next hand has to be too late to report a hitch.

[Cascade]

It used to be a good way to deal with long pauses--if RHO paused before bidding, you would say "tempo break, all agree?" and in the usual case where all did agree you could just get on with the hand and worry about damage later.

I wish.

 

The usual response I get is complete denial. Against some players I have taken to timing the tempo break and they still deny the break. I guess this is just another way of cheating.

 

However I do agree that the process works quite well when all four players agree. I know of one player in particular who is quick to point out that there is a tempo break. While he has done this several times at my table we have never had a subsequent problem after acknowledging the tempo break.

[1eyedjack]

Well I don't think the penalty double is so clear.

I probably double for penalties less than anyone else, but this one stands out to me.

East has 7 cards that are no trump,

I need a majority of trumps in my own hand to double? Declarer also has 6 cards that are not trumps, and three of his 7 trumps should be losers, even if you use one of yours to ruff AND you get endplayed to lead trumps (the 8) once.

you can't count on the Q's to make a trick,

True, but you CAN count on them promoting partner's Kings and Jacks, of which he should have several for his opening bid.

 

Declarer bid 3S expecting not to make, and you have nothing but bad news for him. You have at least 2 more trumps than he can reasonably expect when bidding it. Opponents cannot have more than 7 trumps between them. Partner has opened the bidding. You almost have an opening bid of your own, and your side certainly has the majority of high card honours. Trumps are breaking badly in the best possible way for the defence. Your target is only 5 tricks to their 9.

 

If you do not double this one, my friend, you can put the red card back in the packing case for good.

[keylime]

Folks everyone's missed the boat here because no one's mentioned that the penalty double there of East is an IMMEDIATE alert because of them not being a passed hand. I award 60/40 with E/W getting the short stick AND I slap a 1/4 board procedural penalty for making a double that was clearly penalty and not alerted. And with regards to West, a stern sitdown about obligations and conduct (unless it was clear that they fully understood the double to be penalty and felt that they were in the right - then that brings another set of issues. From what I've read, West's thinking time doesn't bar them from taking a possible LA of pass there).