Could it be short?

[McBruce]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa76hj94dk62ca982&w=skt43hk75daq8543c&n=sq92hq86djtcjt754&e=sj85hat32d97ckq63&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1c2dppdp3cppd3dp3sdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

This auction took place at an ACBL Unit Championship Swiss Teams. Both pairs had considerable experience locally.

 

South's 1♣ opener was announced as possibly a 2 or 3 card suit.

West's 2♦ call was a pre-empt, according to the answer to North's question before his first pass.

West's first double elicited another question from North, who was told that this double was "penalty, I think."

North chose to escape, assuming South had short clubs and therefore length in the majors. 3♦ asked South to pick a major.

South chose spades and went for 1400, losing 15 IMPs (2♦ made ten tricks at the other table).

The N-S side won the 7-board match by 13 even with the 15 IMP loss, but wanted an adjustment based on East's answer to the question about the double of 3♣.

 

One N-S argument was that East should have been able to tell from her cards that West's double could not be for penalties.

E-W objected that answers to questions are based on agreements, not on what your cards tell you.

 

I was the TD and could see some merit in both sides. But when I gave several good players only the North hand and the auction up to West's first double and the explanation that it was penalties, the response was universal: "there is no chance that this double is for penalties."

 

Your ruling?

[campboy]

One N-S argument was that East should have been able to tell from her cards that West's double could not be for penalties.

E-W objected that answers to questions are based on agreements, not on what your cards tell you.

I think East should either say "penalty", if he knows that is their agreement, or "I don't know", if he is unsure of their agreement. Adding "I think" is misleading if he is actually sure, and if he isn't sure why does he think that?

 

Anyway, is there any additional evidence that their agreement was penalty? If not we should rule MI and adjust for E/W. I consider 3♦ to be WoG, and without it there is no damage, so no adjustment for N/S.

[c_corgi]

If the question were "Should South's reopening double be allowed after questions from North?" I would say no. Surely N/S keep table score, but what of E/W? Neither the 2D overcall nor the double of 3C match the description, and in such a way that it doesn't look as if much disclosure was attempted. If MI is determined, as seems likely, then maybe 2D+1 for E/W and a PP (possibly to both pairs) into the bargain?

[barmar]

Could the problem actually be that N/S assumed penalty = trump stack? In this case, it seems like West doubled because he knew his hand was much stronger than expected, and felt that he'd pushed the opponents higher than they wanted to go. It's not an unknown strategy for the player short in trumps to make a penalty double, because he can visualize his partner's hand. In this case, partner can't double on his own, because he's not expecting so much defensive strength in West's hand.

[mycroft]

"considerable experience locally". Is that the polite Vancouver euphamism for "Life Novice"?

 

If N-S really are "good", then accept the poll and tell North that he can't possibly believe them could he? And after all, what's the difference between 4-0 trumps and 0-4 as far as running goes (okay maybe one trick, as all the trumps are "through" the A).

 

I also tend to agree with Barry: If I made a WJO, partner would *not* play me for those other two tricks - at most one of them (that's because I wouldn't make a WJO on this hand, opposite an unpassed partner - it doesn't take much for 3NT to roll (in fact, double dummy it requires a spade underlead or the 4 of hearts to set 3NT E with this hand)).

 

Luckily, in my partnerships, the answer to 3♣X is "undiscussed, but 'undiscussed 3-level doubles are usually "do something intelligent, partner"'" (sorry for the quotelevels).

 

Having said all of that, "Penalty, I think", especially followed up with "they're entitled to agreements, not the contents of my hand" is ingenuous, at best. I'd be happy with "undiscussed", or "Penalty" (even though I know he misbid, that's our agreement) - but "penalty, I think" is bad (well, anything "I think" is bad, but particularly here, particularly with that suit, "I think" is bad).

 

So, can I take the two VPs away from E-W, and score it 15-3? Probably not, not with my guess as to "considerable experience locally".

[campboy]

If N-S really are "good", then accept the poll and tell North that he can't possibly believe them could he? And after all, what's the difference between 4-0 trumps and 0-4 as far as running goes (okay maybe one trick, as all the trumps are "through" the A).

Actually running would be much more attractive if East has the club stack, since if West does both majors must be breaking badly. However, North is sitting immediately over the double: if it were described as either "takeout" or "no agreement" why would he assume East was going to leave it in?

[McBruce]

"Considerable experience locally" means good B players unafraid to mix it up with anyone. Why would I bother with a euphemism?

 

I disagree with the notion that balancing is verboten because partner asked a question and opener has a minimum. The last I checked, all decks have 40 points. Not many Souths would pass out a pre-emptive 2♦ with half the presumed deck out there somewhere.

 

I disagree with the notion that East's explanation is faulty because of the cards in her hand. East's explanation is faulty because it assumes an agreement not agreed to. But I was told (sorry for not including this in the original post) that her first response was "penalty," followed by "I think" after North expressed doubt. I think it was fairly clear to N-S that East was guessing about the double. I don't think it is fair to assume that she deliberately guessed penalty becuase she had clubs.

 

The question, I think, is whether North's rescue mission is wild or gambling. I think it is. Penalties does not necessarily mean trump stack, and preemptive does not necessarily mean weak. I let the score stand for both sides, but warned East about guessing when responding to questions, even when pressed.

[aguahombre]

I disagree with the notion that balancing is verboten because partner asked a question and opener has a minimum. The last I checked, all decks have 40 points. Not many Souths would pass out a pre-emptive 2♦ with half the presumed deck out there somewhere.

No sympathy here for N/S, whatsoever. North's question must have influenced South to reopen with a classic pass. South has the wrong number of diamonds, a 12-count which has become 9 on the auction, and a partner who did not act over 2D. Then, North with 5-card support for South's opening suit runs from their ill-gotten fit into a disaster ---with no other place to play.

 

As TD, I would rule that the result stands. No, West's 2D overcall doesn't fit; no, East didn't handle the questions very well; and no, none of that caused the damage which ensued.

[Trinidad]

I am with Agua on this one. If this reopening double was not influenced by the UI, then I have not been influenced by my parents.

 

Rik

[c_corgi]

As TD, I would rule that the result stands. No, West's 2D overcall doesn't fit; no, East didn't handle the questions very well; and no, none of that caused the damage which ensued.

 

I have a suspicion that had the double of 3C not been described as penalty, North would have stood it, so MI likely contributed to the damage.

 

 

I disagree with the notion that balancing is verboten because partner asked a question and opener has a minimum. The last I checked, all decks have 40 points. Not many Souths would pass out a pre-emptive 2♦ with half the presumed deck out there somewhere.

 

This logic makes it difficult to defend partscores under any circumstances.

 

 

I disagree with the notion that East's explanation is faulty because of the cards in her hand. East's explanation is faulty because it assumes an agreement not agreed to. But I was told (sorry for not including this in the original post) that her first response was "penalty," followed by "I think" after North expressed doubt. I think it was fairly clear to N-S that East was guessing about the double. I don't think it is fair to assume that she deliberately guessed penalty becuase she had clubs.

 

True, but why would a player assume a non existent agreement if it was contradicted by her holding for the purposes of giving an explanation?

 

 

The question, I think, is whether North's rescue mission is wild or gambling. I think it is. Penalties does not necessarily mean trump stack, and preemptive does not necessarily mean weak. I let the score stand for both sides, but warned East about guessing when responding to questions, even when pressed.

 

I think it is beyond wild or gambling and out the other side. While preemptive may not neceassarily mean weak, if the actual hand West held is not a departure from system, then it seems like a grossly insufficient explanation.

[blackshoe]

Was there MI? Yes. Did it cause damage? Well, it appears that the table TD decided that the damage was caused by a wild or gambling action by the NOS, not by the MI. If the MI caused no damage, then there should be no adjustment for either side. That was the table ruling. I see no reason to overturn it on appeal. B-)

[billw55]

"Considerable experience locally" means good B players

I find this strange considering the nonsense perpetrated by all four players. Although I have some sympathy for east who is trying to figure out what a preempt followed by a double might mean.

[mycroft]

The reason I asked is that I don't think the auction and the explanations lend glory to any of the four players, here.

 

I know "experienced locally" pairs that will frequently win at the clubs, and never beat average at a regional - they're not good, and they'll never get better, but they own their compatriots. I also know "experienced locally" pairs that fit your description. I didn't know which you were talking about, that's all.