Double at the one-level

[Coelacanth]

Last night at the club, a player asked me about this auction.

 

I don't know the vulnerability or form of scoring, but please comment if you feel they matter.

 

[hv=d=e&v=0&b=14&a=pp1d1h1sd]133|100[/hv]

 

The call in question is South's double.

 

(1) What are the possible, or at least commonly-played, meanings for this double?

(2) Absent specific discussion about this sequence, is there a default (based on "GBK") meaning for this double? Assume ACBL.

(3) Again ACBL. Which, if any, of these meanings (from (1) and (2)), are alertable?

 

Thanks for your input.

[barmar]

1) Penalty or Snapdragon (shows the 4th suit and tolerance for partner's suit).

 

2) Penalty I think, although it's not clear that a passed hand could have a hand worthy of penalizing on the 1 level when partner has only overcalled.

 

3) Not clear. Alert Procedures says that most doubles are not alertable, unless they have unexpected meanings. For an unpassed hand I'd alert any artificial double, I'm not sure about a passed hand.

[wyman]

1) Penalty or Snapdragon (shows the 4th suit and tolerance for partner's suit).

Seems like takeout should be up there. I don't see why both minors wouldn't be in play.

 

2) Penalty I think, although it's not clear that a passed hand could have a hand worthy of penalizing on the 1 level when partner has only overcalled.

and as a passed hand?

[Siegmund]

I would assume the default meaning is penalty/cards, though that particular meaning (maximum pass with no clear direction) doesn't make a great deal of sense as a passed hand.

 

Common meanings are Snapdragon, and variations that promise something about heart support (Regular or reverse Rosenkranz, where this double is a heart raise either promising or denying a top heart honor -- originally intended more for 1c-1h-2c-X -- and something I personally play where the X here promises Qx/Kx/Ax in hearts and a desire to compete - snapdragonish where the detailed promise is about hearts rather than diamonds).

 

Snapdragon used to be clearly alertable; I am not 100% sure if it is, since "takeout for the unbid suit and the suit you've already proposed" is not too unusual and unexpected here. I think all doubles that carry a very specific promise about your heart holding are alertable.

 

Despite wyman's sensible suggestion, I do not recall ever seeing anyone play this double for the minors.

[Coelacanth]

Thanks for the input so far. Consider the following hypothetical continuation.

 

[hv=d=e&v=0&b=14&a=pp1d1h1sd2d2h]133|100[/hv]

 

Let's say you are East. I don't know East's actual hand, but let's say you are short in ♥, have no ♦ fit with partner, but have enough values to want to compete here. Maybe you are 6115 with about 8-9HCP and failed to open 2♠ because you don't do that with a 6-5 hand.

 

Assume South's double was not alerted. You don't know a ton about NS's methods and style, but you know that both of them are experienced enough to know that support doubles, Rosenkranz doubles, or other conventional doubles would be alertable.

 

(4) If you are considering bidding here, would you ask about the meaning of the double, or would you be concerned about clarifying the auction for your opponents?

(5) If you did decide to bid here, and the double turned out not to be what you thought it was, would you feel entitled to an adjustment:

(5a) if you didn't ask about the double?

(5b) if you asked about the double and were told "undiscussed"?

[gnasher]

but you know that both of them are experienced enough to know that support doubles, Rosenkranz doubles, or other conventional doubles would be alertable

I'm not sure how they would know that.

 

The ACBL General CoC say that "the Alert pamphlet is the final authority in cases of disputes on the Alertability of any conventional call". The Alert Pamphlet says that "Except for those doubles with highly unusual or unexpected meanings, doubles do not require an Alert." Then it gives five examples of alertable doubles: four very unusual penalty doubles and one artificial double of a splinter.

 

I don't think that a Rosenkranz double, which is basically a takeout double in the context of the bidding, falls into the same category as these examples. Hence I interpret the regulations as making a Rosenkranz double not alertable, though I see that others have a different interpretation.

 

(4) If you are considering bidding here, would you ask about the meaning of the double,

If I were uncertain of its meaning, I'd ask what it meant. That's why the laws allow us to ask questions.

 

In this case, the uncertainty about the meaning of the alert regulations naturally leads to uncertainty about the meaning of the double, so I would usually ask.

 

or would you be concerned about clarifying the auction for your opponents?

It's undesirable to inflict a UI problem on the opponents, but it's hard to avoid when we're playing without screens. If I act without finding out what it means, I may make an inferior bid, or I may convey to my partner the UI that I didn't care what the auction meant. So in general I ask.

 

If the opponents are in the middle of a misunderstanding, they may suffer as a result of being constrained by the UI, but it's not my fault that they haven't discussed their methods. I'm not going to disadvantage myself in order to save the opponents from a hypothetical UI problem.

 

(5) If you did decide to bid here, and the double turned out not to be what you thought it was, would you feel entitled to an adjustment:

(5a) if you didn't ask about the double?

No, unless the double had a clearly alertable meaning (eg support). If I assume a particular meaning and it actually has some other non-alertable meaning, that's my own misunderstanding rather than misinformation.

 

(5b) if you asked about the double and were told "undiscussed"?

If they didn't have an agreement and they told me that they didn't have an agreement, what grounds would there be for an adjustment?

Edited January 15, 2013 by gnasher

[bluejak]

Thanks for the input so far. Consider the following hypothetical continuation.

 

[hv=d=e&v=0&b=14&a=pp1d1h1sd2d2h]133|100[/hv]

 

Let's say you are East. I don't know East's actual hand, but let's say you are short in ♥, have no ♦ fit with partner, but have enough values to want to compete here. Maybe you are 6115 with about 8-9HCP and failed to open 2♠ because you don't do that with a 6-5 hand.

 

Assume South's double was not alerted. You don't know a ton about NS's methods and style, but you know that both of them are experienced enough to know that support doubles, Rosenkranz doubles, or other conventional doubles would be alertable.

 

(4) If you are considering bidding here, would you ask about the meaning of the double, or would you be concerned about clarifying the auction for your opponents?

I never assume the opponents are cheats. Of course I ask.

 

(5) If you did decide to bid here, and the double turned out not to be what you thought it was, would you feel entitled to an adjustment:

(5a) if you didn't ask about the double?

(5b) if you asked about the double and were told "undiscussed"?

5a does not apply.

 

5b is life: why should I assume they are telling me anything but the truth?

[barmar]

5b is life: why should I assume they are telling me anything but the truth?

There seems to be a general distrust of "undiscussed" explanations, unless they're a pickup partnership.

 

Wasn't there a recent discussion (maybe in the appeals forum) about an established expert partnership, where they claimed not to have discussed followons after interference in a NT auction? That's the kind of thing that raises red flags, and makes people suspicious of other such explanations.

[bluejak]

General distrust? Not that I am aware of. It is true that there a minority of people who are very unethical, in my view a small minority, and a slightly larger minority of distrustful people. But in my view when someone says something is undiscussed, it is usually true, and usually believed.

[Zelandakh]

But David, the problem is that while the bid may be undiscussed, many players do not disclose secondary information that is relevant - metarules for undiscussed bids or that they changed their system last week, or whatever. If a pair say a bid is undiscussed, I can either accept it or I can ask half a dozen follow-up questions to reach somewhere close to the chance of understanding it as their partner has. This should not be necessary; the partner should disclose everything relevant straight up. The problem is that a vast majority of club players do not do this. This is why "undiscussed" is viewed with such skepticism in many cases. Obviously, this is different for a pick up partnership in an obscure auction.

 

Here is an example:

 

1NT - 2♣; 2NT

 

Opener will tell you that 2NT is impossible in their system. What he will not tell you is that his partner usually plays Forum D where a 2NT response shows both majors. Nor that they only recently started playing their current system and used to play this method before. He will then bid 4M and when partner happens to turn up with both majors tell you how lucky he was and that he was taking a chance. This was just one of many examples I faced last year and I do not play a huge amount of face to face bridge. Is it any wonder that some regular club players are skeptical?

[Trinidad]

I can only agree with Zel. There is a big difference between undiscussed and undiscussed.

 

At the one end there is the pick up partnership that ends in a situation where they have no clue what a bid means.

 

At the other end there is the partnership that has never discussed this particular situation, but did discuss a range of similar situations and in all those situations the meaning of the bid would be clear.

 

Before you now go and say that obviously this pair should disclose all this relevant information, you should keep in mind what the TD has told these guys on a previous occasion: They were in a similar situation and when a question was asked the explainer didn't even recognize that the situation was undiscussed. After all, in all these similar situations the bid shows XYZ, therefore in this situation it also shows XYZ and he explained that nicely. However, there was a slight problem: Partner had figured out a reason why this situation was different from all the others which is why he intended to show PQR with the bid. After all, if he would have had XYZ he could have bid KLM. The players remembered very well that the TD at the time instructed them to explain that there was "no agreement". They got away with a warning, but the next time there would be a PP.

 

Not only do TDs instruct players to say "no agreement" when there is no agreement, they also forbid them to "speculate". And in my experience, most players (and many TDs) do not understand the difference between "speculating" and explaining the meta-rules that (could) apply in the situation.

 

Rik

[pran]

Law 20F requires a player to disclose the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

 

"Undiscussed" may be the truth, but how often is it the whole truth?

 

I suspect that this is very seldom the case, and I strongly suspect that the whole truth has indeed not been disclosed when the player next selects an action that turns out fortunately with the "undiscussed" call.

[barmar]

Not only do TDs instruct players to say "no agreement" when there is no agreement, they also forbid them to "speculate". And in my experience, most players (and many TDs) do not understand the difference between "speculating" and explaining the meta-rules that (could) apply in the situation.

Right. How many times have we complained about answers that begin with "I'm taking it as...", which is essentially that speculation. This speculation is likely to be based on their inferences from partnership experience, and may actually be the best approximation of a good answer to the question. But we tell people not to give answers like this, perhaps because we're worried about the case where the speculation is incorrect: partner has received helpful UI (and many players are not good at ignoring it) while the opponents do not actually receive proper disclosure.

 

The result is that players are caught between a rock and a hard place, and it's often unclear what they should do.

[mycroft]

"We have no agreement about this auction, but without the double, it would mean... and we do have an agreement over that double that [other call] means..."

 

I do this all the time. What's so hard? (yes, I know, most players don't know what they know, they just know it. That's why they can't answer "what suit quality do you expect for your preempt", even though they bid game with xxx 'knowing' that they aren't off the AK).

 

Don't tell me what you're taking it as. Tell me the information that allows you to decide how you're going to take it. I do try to explain that when this comes up as a TD. I do realize it's non-trivial.