Self-Awareness

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=st5hjdqjt53cqj954&w=sak42hak64dak7c86&n=sj97ht87d862ck732&e=sq863hq9532d94cat&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp2nppp]399|300[/hv]

IMPs, Love All, Table result 2NT-7, NS -350

 

This was an odd hand from a London club a couple of nights ago. South's 2NT was not alerted and was systemically 7-11 with 5-5 or longer in the minors (on both cards). West did not double as he thought his partner would be a broken reed and it might give the opponents a chance to get out into a minor. He guessed South was opening 2NT with good clubs and he was confident of beating 2NT!

 

2NT did not make many tricks, but +350 was poor recompense for the missed slam. The TD ruled that West could have asked or worked out that 2NT was not natural and he ruled no adjustment. West stated he would have doubled if 2NT had been alerted, and they might well have got to the heart slam, reached in the other room without interference. How do you rule?

[Zelandakh]

If West had asked we get a new thread where East's play is called into question from having UI that partner has values when South holds a normal 19-20 opening.

[MickyB]

If West had asked we get a new thread where East's play is called into question from having UI that partner has values when South holds a normal 19-20 opening.

 

Or West reminds North what the bid means and misses out on benefitting from their system forget.

 

Not adjusting is ridiculous. While you can argue that West should know/should double anyway, there's no way he wouldn't have doubled if 2NT had been alerted. It's not part of the game to put up extra hurdles by giving MI. Besides, you don't want to reward anyone who decides to deliberately not alert in this situation.

[Trinidad]

West was misinformed. That's an irregularity. I believe that West would have doubled had there been a proper alert. I will adjust the score, since there is damage.

 

The question is what the AS should be. I can see a path to:

- 2NTX S -7: NS -1700

- 2NTXX S -7: NS -3400

- 4♥ E +2: NS -480

- 4♠ E +3: NS -510

- 5♥ E +1: NS -480

- 5♠ E +2: NS -510

- 6♥ E =: NS -980

- 6♠ E +1: NS -1010

- 7♥ E -1: NS +50

- 7♠ E =: NS-1510

- 6♥X E =: NS -1210

- 6♠X E +1: NS -1310

- 4♥XX E +2: NS -1280

- 4♠XX E +3: NS -1480

- 5♥XX E +1: NS -1200

- 5♠XX E +2: NS -1400

- 6♥XX E =: NS -1620

- 6♠XX E +1: NS -1820

- 7♥X E -1: NS +100

- 7♠X E =: NS -2240

 

Seems like a weighted score to me. :)

 

IMO, the TD is wrong. There is no reason why South can't hold ♠QJ♥Qxx♦QJ♣AKQJxx. (South doesn't even need the ♥J.) In that case it is not a SEWoG to pass.

 

And asking about a not alerted 2NT bid (just to be sure) gives a ton of UI to partner.

 

Rik

[PhilKing]

West was right not to ask about 2NT even if he strongly suspected a cock-up - why wake up North? The imaginary director should be reprogrammed.

 

However, West has an obvious double of 2NT regardless. After all, if South has a tactical 2NT with long clubs, he has six tricks against a run-out to 3♣ for +300, and may not beat 2NT by more than a trick. Passing is utterly ridiculous! Otherwise, I guess we could go for 2NT-X-p-p-xx-ap, for -3400, which is the result N/S arguably deserve.

 

North passing with a four count is not unreasonable, but I would be somewhat concerned that he landed on his feet. Maybe he had been there before (except he does not exist, obviously, except in that A-ha video).

[lamford]

However, West has an obvious double of 2NT regardless. After all, if South has a tactical 2NT with long clubs, he has six tricks against a run-out to 3♣ for +300, and may not beat 2NT by more than a trick.

West thought, rightly or wrongly, that, if he doubled, North's putative 3C or 3D would be natural, and he saw no reason why the layout could not be something like North Txxx none xxxx Txxxx opposite South QJ QJTx QJx AKQJ when the opponents will run to the cold 3C, with nothing on his way.

 

And you would only fail to adjust for EW if not doubling was wild or gambling; you would adjust against NS anyway. Now I know that in the Land of Kings failing to execute a triple squeeze is SEWoG, but we mortals need to revoke or lead out of turn to qualify.

[ahydra]

If 2NT-X-p-p, why on earth would I redouble as South - whether holding this hand or an actual 20 balanced?

 

And failing to double a contract when you have 6 top tricks, on lead, surely is SE. It'd be like failing to double 7NT with an ace and/or not leading your ace (a concept with which GIB users are unfortunately very familiar).

 

ahydra

[MickyB]

If 2NT-X-p-p, why on earth would I redouble as South - whether holding this hand or an actual 20 balanced?

 

And failing to double a contract when you have 6 top tricks, on lead, surely is SE. It'd be like failing to double 7NT with an ace and/or not leading your ace (a concept with which GIB users are unfortunately very familiar).

 

ahydra

 

This is only true if both North and South are barred from the auction. There are loads of situations where you shouldn't double a contract that you know is going off, for fear that they run to a contract that makes. If RHO is balanced then it is unlikely that they will make 3C, but to describe it as a serious error is pretty harsh, especially as a double is likely to help oppo if RHO has psyched.

[lamford]

And failing to double a contract when you have 6 top tricks, on lead, surely is SE. It'd be like failing to double 7NT with an ace and/or not leading your ace (a concept with which GIB users are unfortunately very familiar).

Even if the failure to double was a serious error, it was not "unrelated to the infraction" and is therefore immune from sewogification under 12C1b.

[Trinidad]

And failing to double a contract when you have 6 top tricks, on lead, surely often is SE.

 

FYP

 

Lamford even explained in his OP already why West didn't double. I will not go as far as to say that it would be silly for West to double, but calling not doubling an SE just because you can beat the contract is definitely silly. Have you ever heard of a Fredin double?

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

Is there really someone who has a natural double available against a natural 2NT opening?

[lamford]

Is there really someone who has a natural double available against a natural 2NT opening?

Is there really someone who has an artificial double available against a natural 2NT opening? And, more pertinently, is there someone who has discussed it?

[helene_t]

We play stripe tail ape doubles over their 2NT. A Yarb with 7 bananas is ideal. After

2NT-dbl-rdbl-pass

pass-3bananas-?

they usually manage to screw up their system.

[gnasher]

I think double would be a very silly call. From West's point of view, it's very likely that South has psyched or misbid, but North is apparently unware of this. If West passes, he can expect North to bid game. Why should we double 2NT when we have a good chance of doubling 3NT or 4M? Even if they get lucky, with North bidding Stayman and South passing, we're not much worse off than if we'd doubled 3♣.

[aguahombre]

Is there really someone who has an artificial double available against a natural 2NT opening? And, more pertinently, is there someone who has discussed it?

Yes. My pard would assume a CHASM double showing color-matched suits because it is what we use over a strong 1NT. What we have is not relevant, but maybe E/W's agreements would be relevant to whether double was even possible.

[PhilKing]

I think double would be a very silly call. From West's point of view, it's very likely that South has psyched or misbid, but North is apparently unware of this. If West passes, he can expect North to bid game. Why should we double 2NT when we have a good chance of doubling 3NT or 4M? Even if they get lucky, with North bidding Stayman and South passing, we're not much worse off than if we'd doubled 3♣.

 

Because you want +1400 rather than +1100? We have enough points to suggest there is quite a high likelihood of it going all pass. How many points do you need to actually start worrying. 25?

 

Besides, even when North is bidding, it will generally be 3♣ (which South will pass), and South will also pass a transfer to hearts. And partner will play us for less when we "balance" with double.

[iviehoff]

Is there really someone who has a natural double available against a natural 2NT opening?

I was once playing with an occasional partner who did. I learnt it the hard way.

[lamford]

Yes. My pard would assume a CHASM double showing color-matched suits because it is what we use over a strong 1NT.

I think that is a big leap of faith. My pard would assume there was a chasm somewhere else.

[lamford]

We play stripe tail ape doubles over their 2NT. A Yarb with 7 bananas is ideal. After

2NT-dbl-rdbl-pass

pass-3bananas-?

they usually manage to screw up their system.

I trust you alert the STAD. The problem with the method is that they might decide to settle for +1730 vulnerable or +1130 non vulnerable, by passing it out instead of redoubling, instead of the 6NT they were going to bid.

[ggwhiz]

When I first started a local expert told my pard that if it goes 2nt p - p to you, you should double blind so I blame East. But if given proper information before the play can East not retract their last pass? If South didn't fess up in time to allow that opportunity he is going to jail.

 

More to the point, West can't possibly ask anything without throwing UI in all directions. I'm protecting him and with no particular conviction on which way that UI would have headed, for 2nt smashed -7. North has nowhere to go absent UI and South has nothing that they haven't shown.

 

ps. A few nights later I opened 2nt - p and my pard smoothly passed a flat 10 count to the same expert.

[barmar]

When I first started a local expert told my pard that if it goes 2nt p - p to you, you should double blind so I blame East.

That's one of those things that everyone talks about (2NT with a broke partner is a very difficult contract). But no one actually does it, because the obvious countermeasure is for responder to make psychic passes with good hands, knowing that they're going to be doubled.

[lamford]

When I first started a local expert told my pard that if it goes 2nt p - p to you, you should double blind so I blame East. But if given proper information before the play can East not retract their last pass? If South didn't fess up in time to allow that opportunity he is going to jail.

South did correct the failure to alert before the opening lead, but East did not call the director, as he was unaware that he could take back his Pass. I learn that this breach of 9b1(a) was one reason the TD did not adjust the score, and I think I agree with him, despite the claims that he should be reprogrammed.

[blackshoe]

South did correct the failure to alert before the opening lead, but East did not call the director, as he was unaware that he could take back his Pass. I learn that this breach of 9b1(a) was one reason the TD did not adjust the score, and I think I agree with him, despite the claims that he should be reprogrammed.

And what, pray tell, of South's breach of Law 20F5{b}? 9B1{a} says the director "should" be called. 20F5{b} says the director "must" be called. Seems to me the latter is the more serious offense.

[lamford]

And what, pray tell, of South's breach of Law 20F5{b}? 9B1{a} says the director "should" be called. 20F5{b} says the director "must" be called. Seems to me the latter is the more serious offense.

The relevant Law states:

5. (a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any

manner that a mistake has been made. ‘Mistaken explanation’ here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an

alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require.

 

(b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75)

but only at his first legal opportunity, which is:

(i) for a defender, at the end of the play.

(ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction.

 

So, the requirement for declarer to call the director only applies when his partner's explanation was erroneous. No explanation was given.

Where there is a failure to alert, that is indeed a mistaken explanation for the purpose of 20F5(a) but it says "here", and does not say "here and in 20F(b)". That is wrong; even leaving out the "here" would be fine! As written, the declarer only has an obligation to correct an erroneous explanation, and I would not punish a declarer who read this Law as written. Law 75 only gives by way of example mistaken explanation, so that does not correct the wrong wording.

[lamford]

And what, pray tell, of South's breach of Law 20F5{b}? 9B1{a} says the director "should" be called. 20F5{b} says the director "must" be called. Seems to me the latter is the more serious offense.

As they say in Prime Minister's question time in the UK. "I refer the honourable member to the answer I gave some moments ago."