Double entendre

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=s653h762dkqj863c4&w=sjt8742ha4d2ct753&n=sakqh3dat954c9862&e=s9hkqjt985d7cakqj&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=2c(FG%20or%2023-24%20Bal)p2d(to%20play%20if%20weak%20with%20diamonds%2C%20else%20relay)4hppp]399|300[/hv]

At a local club, in a multiple teams, East, our friend who worships the Secretary Bird, was in his element on this deal. South's 2♣ was systemically either weak with diamonds or strong, but was explained by North as strong. 2♦ was alerted, and East also asked about that and was told it was to play opposite weak with diamonds, else a relay. East bid a normal 4♥ and North felt ethically constrained not to bid 5♦ on the way out. In the other room, North-South had done very well to sacrifice in 6♦x-1, a great result, but SB was not happy with his 11 IMPs. He thought that although North had strained to be ethical, he had not strained hard enough. From North's point of view, the pass of 4♥ would surely be forcing, and he had an automatic double. East would have caretaker's dog's redouble, and neither opponent would be able to bid, as pass would be an LA. So, he wanted the score adjusted to 4♥xx+1 for East.

 

How do you rule?

[iviehoff]

There is no concern over South's pass. He has no LA.

 

North is right that among the calls available to him, 5D is a suggested call. So he may not call 5D unless there is no LA. But, as East correctly points out, he is under an even stronger ethical constraint to choose calling over passing, since if he really believed his partner was strong he would never choose pass without the UI. Pass is not a LA. So he must call something, but not 5D if we can find a sensible alternative. Assuming S is not the Walrus you recently introduced us to, which seems unlikely, then, depending upon exacly what NS mean by strong, N can plausibly bid 5H as "pick a slam". Partner would then bid 6D. This is obviously a worse idea than playing in 5D, and N can hardly be sure (with the UI) that a diamond contract will make as many as 11 tricks: there may be rather more losers in clubs and trumps than turns out to be the case. I think that forcing to slam when your partner is known (from UI) to have a weak-2 bid, even one you have a fit for, is not "demonstrably suggested", so 5H would seem to be a legal bid. East is also correct that dbl is a legal bid. So perhaps some weighting of those.

[gordontd]

From North's point of view, the pass of 4♥ would surely be forcing, and he had an automatic double.

I don't see this as an automatic double. I'm finding it hard to see what alternative I have to bidding 5♥

[lamford]

I don't see this as an automatic double. I'm finding it hard to see what alternative I have to bidding 5♥

SB argued that North knew that 5H would get a good 6D save from South, so bidding it was not "carefully avoiding taking advantage from the UI". I can't construct a 2C bid for South and a vulnerable 4H for East. So, if double is an LA for North - it only needs to be that - then 5H is demonstrably suggested. The question is should double of 4H be takeout or penalties? If it would have been penalties, then 5H might be the only LA.

[Blue Uriah]

I don't see this as an automatic double. I'm finding it hard to see what alternative I have to bidding 5♥

Assuming South's pass is forcing, North would normally be expected to double unless he had a dislike for defending. Here he might well prefer to pursue a slam than defend but at this vulnerability double is surely a LA.

 

That said, East has claimed he would redouble 100% of the time (presumably the caretaker's dog is an idiot), and this would surely allow North/South off the hook. So I'd rule table result stands.

[gordontd]

So, if double is an LA for North - it only needs to be that - then 5H is demonstrably suggested.

I'm saying I don't think double is an LA, even at this vulnerability. Others may judge the position differently. It seems to me that the authorised auction is presenting me with a choice between a penalty and a likely grand.

[lamford]

<snip> this would surely allow North/South off the hook. So I'd rule table result stands.

Clearly South cannot pull the redouble. Do you think North ethically can and pass is not an LA?

[campboy]

SB argued that North knew that 5H would get a good 6D save from South, so bidding it was not "carefully avoiding taking advantage from the UI". I can't construct a 2C bid for South and a vulnerable 4H for East. So, if double is an LA for North - it only needs to be that - then 5H is demonstrably suggested. The question is should double of 4H be takeout or penalties? If it would have been penalties, then 5H might be the only LA.

Personally I would bid 5NT. But you are right that we just need double to be an LA to adjust. What would double by opener mean? If it would show a balanced or otherwise defensive hand then it makes sense for double by North to seriously suggest taking the money; this is what I play. If double by opener is takeout then double by responder is probably also takeout.

[Blue Uriah]

Clearly South cannot pull the redouble. Do you think North ethically can and pass is not an LA?

I think if you've got a 13 count and your opponents are confident that they're taking 10 tricks then partner is known to be pretty weak, regardless of what he opened. Even if you somehow can construct a hand where South is strong and East thinks he can make 10 tricks (good luck), you surely can't take it more than 1 off while you're almost certainly making a slam. When you doubled it was at least plausible that partner had a flat 23 count and East had King-Jack-to-nine or somesuch, but that's off the table now.

[lamford]

I think if you've got a 13 count and your opponents are confident that they're taking 10 tricks then partner is known to be pretty weak, regardless of what he opened. Even if you somehow can construct a hand where South is strong and East thinks he can make 10 tricks (good luck), you surely can't take it more than 1 off while you're almost certainly making a slam. When you doubled it was at least plausible that partner had a flat 23 count and East had King-Jack-to-nine or somesuch, but that's off the table now.

I think when you have UI you must assume the opponents are loonies, not partner. Partner could have something like ♠void ♥AKQ ♦KQJxxx ♣KQJx. Now even 6D might go off on a club ruff - while Sutch and Boaks with ♠xx ♥J10xxxx ♦x ♣Axxx opposite ♠Jxxxxxxx ♥xx ♦xx ♣x will have converted the -2800 in 4Hxx-6 into a plus score, and they will be chanting "Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel" for the rest of the match. You can punish them for remarks likely to detract from your enjoyment of the game, but the fault was yours. Double of 4H is clearly an LA, as is pass of the redouble.

[lamford]

I'm saying I don't think double is an LA, even at this vulnerability. Others may judge the position differently. It seems to me that the authorised auction is presenting me with a choice between a penalty and a likely grand.

Do you think double of 4H by partner would have been penalties, and what would pass and pull the double mean?

[AlexJonson]

When 4Hxx reaches me, I haven't even shown my hand type as South, so I can't see why I'm barred from bidding diamonds.

 

I think 7D doubled is probably a 'sensible' end result.

[Blue Uriah]

I think when you have UI you must assume the opponents are loonies, not partner. Partner could have something like ♠void ♥AKQ ♦KQJxxx ♣KQJx. Now even 6D might go off on a club ruff - while Sutch and Boaks with ♠xx ♥J10xxxx ♦x ♣Axxx opposite ♠Jxxxxxxx ♥xx ♦xx ♣x will have converted the -2800 in 4Hxx-6 into a plus score, and they will be chanting "Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel" for the rest of the match. You can punish them for remarks likely to detract from your enjoyment of the game, but the fault was yours. Double of 4H is clearly an LA, as is pass of the redouble.

So the definition of an LA is different in this situation is it? Instead of it being a call which is at least possibly correct it's a call that is almost certainly wrong except in the 0.01% of cases where the opponents are on massive tilt and are just pissing about? Seems pretty harsh to me.

[lamford]

So the definition of an LA is different in this situation is it? Instead of it being a call which is at least possibly correct it's a call that is almost certainly wrong except in the 0.01% of cases where the opponents are on massive tilt and are just pissing about? Seems pretty harsh to me.

No, the definition of an LA has not changed. It is one that would be given serious consideration by (I think the figure is 20%) of peers, and some (thought to be around 25% of those that consider it) might choose it. But one must always assume that partner has his or her bid, regardless of what the opponents do, as I understand it. Else we would be able to field the psychic 1NT overcall when the vulnerable opponents open the bidding and then double it.

 

In this case the authorised auction strongly suggests that the opponents are, as you say, urinating on the carpet.

[lamford]

When 4Hxx reaches me, I haven't even shown my hand type as South, so I can't see why I'm barred from bidding diamonds.

 

I think 7D doubled is probably a 'sensible' end result.

South thought that he had the avant-garde agreement that pass of 4H showed the weak two in diamonds, and double, or other bids, would show the strong hand-type. Unusual methods, I know, but North-South were stuck with them.

[lamford]

If double by opener is takeout then double by responder is probably also takeout.

Indeed, that is another reason why double becomes an LA for North. Why should he drive to slam when South might have a penalty double of 4♥?

[gordontd]

Do you think double of 4H by partner would have been penalties, and what would pass and pull the double mean?

I know some people have agreements (at least over on this side of the Atlantic) that include forcing passes & takeout doubles in specific situations, but I think the normal thing in these sorts of auctions, without any specific agreement, is that double is penalty and you can (forcing) pass with any hand that might have made a takeout double.

 

Passing & pulling shows a stronger hand (ie invites slam) than does making the same bid immediately. So when partner passed 4H he either said he didn't mind defending if I want to (which I don't see that I do), or that he wants to invite slam even if I do want to defend.

 

I agree it's hard to construct hands so that everything makes sense, but perhaps the 4H bidder might have had nine solid missing the ace, and partner x, A, KQJ, AKQJxxxx (move a few small minor cards around as you wish). Now we're cold for a grand in three denominations [edit: actually only two] and 4H is only two off.

[campboy]

No, the definition of an LA has not changed. It is one that would be given serious consideration by (I think the figure is 20%) of peers, and some (thought to be around 25% of those that consider it) might choose it.

Surely that should be 25% of 20%, not 25% of those that consider it? It would be rather silly for an action to be an LA when considered by 20% and chosen by 5% but not when considered by 50% and chosen by 10%.

[lamford]

Surely that should be 25% of 20%, not 25% of those that consider it? It would be rather silly for an action to be an LA when considered by 20% and chosen by 5% but not when considered by 50% and chosen by 10%.

Yes, you are right.

[lamford]

I agree it's hard to construct hands so that everything makes sense, but perhaps the 4H bidder might have had nine solid missing the ace, and partner x, A, KQJ, AKQJxxxx (move a few small minor cards around as you wish). Now we're cold for a grand in three denominations and 4H is only two off.

On that hand, partner will not pass the double of 4H, so you will reach grand anyway - he will pull to 5C as a slam try; so I contend that 5H and 5NT are suggested over double by the UI; not only that but they take up room. On your hand it will be trivial to bid Double-(pass)-5C-(pass)-5D-(pass)-5H-(pass)-5S-(pass)-7NT. But, for us to adjust, Double only has to be an LA. You know that partner cannot have the hand I gave earlier (none AKQ KQJxxx KQJx) from the UI. I asked North how he played double of 4H with a partner that played a vanilla 2C, and he thought takeout, but it had not been discussed.

[lamford]

One other point that has just occurred to me. 16B1(b) defines a logical alternative as:

<snip> one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it. [My emphasis]

 

This is just wrong, isn't it? In our example, the methods of the partnership were that Pass of 4H showed a weak two in diamonds, except that North is deemed not to remember that. Clearly the only LA for a North with these methods is 5D, but we disallow it, perhaps illegally.

 

What 16B1(b) should say is:

<snip> one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership believed at the time by the person with UI, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

 

Without this change, one has to push even more adjustments through 73C. And apologies for including a brief comment which belongs in "changing laws and regulations", before a moderator threatens to move it.

[axman]

One other point that has just occurred to me. 16B1(b) defines a logical alternative as:

<snip> one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it. [My emphasis]

 

This is just wrong, isn't it? In our example, the methods of the partnership were that Pass of 4H showed a weak two in diamonds, except that North is deemed not to remember that. Clearly the only LA for a North with these methods is 5D, but we disallow it, perhaps illegally.

 

What 16B1(b) should say is:

<snip> one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership believed at the time by the person with UI, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

 

Without this change, one has to push even more adjustments through 73C. And apologies for including a brief comment which belongs in "changing laws and regulations", before a moderator threatens to move it.

 

I think what is being demonstrated is that in an attempt to have the concept of LA work it is necessary to contort everybody in an ungodly manner.

[iviehoff]

One other point that has just occurred to me. 16B1(b) defines a logical alternative as:

<snip> one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it. [My emphasis]

 

This is just wrong, isn't it? In our example, the methods of the partnership were that Pass of 4H showed a weak two in diamonds, except that North is deemed not to remember that. Clearly the only LA for a North with these methods is 5D, but we disallow it, perhaps illegally.

 

What 16B1(b) should say is:

<snip> one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership believed at the time by the person with UI, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

Clearly the definition in the laws doesn't compute when the UI is precisely an unauthorised reminder of the agreed methods of the partnership. I don't think we have so much of a problem working that out for ourselves, and what to do about it. For further assistance, there is plenty of authority on this fairly common situation. For once, I think it is obvious enough I'd prefer to leave the law as it is, rather than confusing the general case with some contorted rewriting to cover this situation.