"Mandatory" negative double?

[nielsfoged]

Please excuse me, if this topic appears in the wrong forum, ...or maybe even appears to you to be proposing a wrongdoing to your freedom to operate when playing bridge!

Today, I experienced the following rather usual situation in a national level pairs tournament (arranged without screens, and in the presence of very experienced and competent international tournament directors, TDs):

[hv=pc=n&s=skq73hk862da862c7&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=p1d3cpp]133|200[/hv]

I was East and my partner correctly used the stop card when bidding 3♣, and North took what seemed to me an appropriate pause and briefly checked our convention card before passing. I passed, and South made the final pass after a brief consideration.

 

My opponents have been partners and have participated in national championships for many years. I know them well, as pleasant, fair and friendly. They play 5-card major and weak (12-14) 1NT openings. Both of their 1 Minor openings promise at least 3 cards. They play negative doubles up to the 4-level. I would never expect them to do any conscious illegal signalling at the table, and I believe they do their best to reduce the risk of sending and receiving unauthorized information.

 

However, I think it should be "mandatory" to make a negative double with hands like the actual one, for all who choose to play and declare the abovementioned conventions. In my opinion, there should be no freedom to sense that this particular time a negative double is too dangerous, whereas another time it would be OK with a similar hand. I am aware that such a decison to pass can be argued by the bidder as e.g., "table feeling", "trying to secure the actual placement in the tournament by avoiding a catastrophe", etc, etc. I am also aware that there will be other hands, which are not as obvious in shape, or where the vulnerability is even less attractive as in the actual example, and where a decision to pass has more substantial arguments.

 

I decided to call the TD after the board was played, but as I almost expected the TD (very likely rightfully) felt that my protest and call had no merit, since I had not seen been aware of any unauthorized information.

 

Thank you in advance for any comment or view points on this you will share here.

 

Niels

 

PS: we got a high score (90%) on the board winning 10 tricks in 3♣, where the opponents had 10-11 tricks in a ♠ contract, so the reason for bringing it up is purely of general nature.

[gszes]

Look at this from another point of view----your LHO may have sensed that his p

had a "problem" with his hand and was "unintentionally" making the opening

bidder aware of it. LHO then did the honorable thing and passed not because

of any special table feel but because their p squirming made pass the honorable

thing to do.

 

The TD is there to redress "injury" and if your RHO was squirming in order to

keep his p quiet (because he had complete dreck for ex:) a case for misconduct

against your RHO could be made. LHO in this instance acted well IMO and I see

no reason to consider it necessary to make the x automatic any more than I think

it is reasonable to force a player to bid 1n with Kxx KQxx Kxx KJx with no spots

higher than a 6. If a player wants to downgrade such a hand to a 1c/1d opening

that's their business.

[the_clown]

I think double is completely obvious, I don't think any reasonable player would choose to pass in that position.

[Vampyr]

However, I think it should be "mandatory" to make a negative double with hands like the actual one, for all who choose to play and declare the abovementioned conventions. In my opinion, there should be no freedom to sense that this particular time a negative double is too dangerous, whereas another time it would be OK with a similar hand.

 

It may be difficult to determine whether reopening on this hand is in fact "mandatory" in your opponents' system. Obviously they do not have to arrange their system to your liking or that of anyone but themselves.

 

If in fact it is mandatory, then there may have been some UI created and it happened as per gszes' post. But there are other possibilities -- maybe opener noticed a lack of UI, and knew that it was always present when partner has a trump stack.

[JLOGIC]

Your opponent was being super ethical imo, pretty ridiculous post? He knew his partner had some values or a trap pass or w/e based on the UI he had available (from his partners hesitation over 3C), so if X and pass are logical alternatives, he chose the one that was not suggested by the UI (obviously if partner thinks over 3C, X rates to work).

 

If your argument is that passing is not a logical alternative then alright, all the guy did was damage himself by bending over backwards to be ethical. You should compliment him.

 

It is not really irrelevant that you got a near top and doubling would have worked well for him, that's kind of the point. Look at it this way, if his partner insta passed over 3C and he passed it out, that would be unethical since it would be pretty obvious his partner had a bad hand and thus passing would rate to work well. The opposite occurred here, his partner indicated a marginal bid (or a hand that was going to trap pass), so obviously doubling would work well for him.

 

If this happened to me I would double since I think it is the only logical alternative, but I would understand if you called the director and tried to argue I had UI and that passing was a logical altnerative. If I passed I would hope you would commend me or be appreciative of my actively ethical, and most likely too ethical, behavior, not start a thread that maybe I had done something wrong lol or even worse, call the director on me! You got this one completely backwards.

 

edit: ok sorry, I thought you said north took an inappropriate pause... if he took an appropriate pause then what is the UI? What is the infraction? That he made a strange (in your opinion bid)? He didn't reopen with a minimum opener, not everyone has to play bridge the same way, that is certainly something that many people would do. If you think that his partner broke tempo either too fast or too slow then I would understand your point but if he did nothing unusual I don't see the problem, south is free to do whatever they want. If you think all players should have to play bridge the same way and reopen at the 3 level vul with a 12 count then that seems pretty bad.

[aguahombre]

edit: ok sorry, I thought you said north took an inappropriate pause... if he took an appropriate pause then what is the UI? What is the infraction? That he made a strange (in your opinion bid)? He didn't reopen with a minimum opener, not everyone has to play bridge the same way, that is certainly something that many people would do. If you think that his partner broke tempo either too fast or too slow then I would understand your point but if he did nothing unusual I don't see the problem, south is free to do whatever they want. If you think all players should have to play bridge the same way and reopen at the 3 level vul with a 12 count then that seems pretty bad.

All of that edit covers the legalities, and no there is nothing mandatory about reopening with that hand unless your agreements command it. It is a choice.

 

I would reopen it with a double. Partner surely holds somewhere around 9 to a lot more. She could easily have the best hand at the table but the wrong orientation for a negative double, a pure penalty pass, or negative double configuration without quite the strength for 3-level action. I don't care which of those it is; will find out after I double.

 

But, there is no one who will succesfully tell me I have to reopen it. If Righty were not a passed hand, I would not reopen.

[awm]

There may be some impact from playing a weak notrump here. Responder (north) in these auctions will normally assume that opener has a strong notrump, and will therefore act more aggressively. For example, he aught to bid 3M with a good nine-count and five-card suit, or double with appropriate shape and 9 points, both hands which pass in a strong notrump system (where he'd expect a weak notrump and wouldn't want to wind up in game opposite that). This makes balancing less appealing, and it seems reasonable to say that a balancing double at the three-level shows a better hand (including shape) than a strong notrump opening.

 

Just a thought; I agree with Justin on the merits of the director call.

[IVAN CY LO]

weak 1NT(12-14), 1 minor opening = ?

 

I know some players play this 1 minor opening = extremely weak, just around 10-11 HCP. So this pass with means below 10 and unable to takeout at 3 level.

[aguahombre]

weak 1NT(12-14), 1 minor opening = ?

 

I know some players play this 1 minor opening = extremely weak, just around 10-11 HCP. So this pass with means below 10 and unable to takeout at 3 level.

So, with 15-17 these players don't open at all?

[helene_t]

weak 1NT(12-14), 1 minor opening = ?

 

I know some players play this 1 minor opening = extremely weak, just around 10-11 HCP. So this pass with means below 10 and unable to takeout at 3 level.

no, this pass could be an unbalanced hand with some club length, or it could be a balanced 15-16, or it could (apparently) be a hand like this one, i.e. good shape but minimum values.

[nielsfoged]

Your opponent was being super ethical imo, pretty ridiculous post? He knew his partner had some values or a trap pass or w/e based on the UI he had available (from his partners hesitation over 3C), so if X and pass are logical alternatives, he chose the one that was not suggested by the UI (obviously if partner thinks over 3C, X rates to work).

 

...

 

edit: ok sorry, I thought you said north took an inappropriate pause... if he took an appropriate pause then what is the UI? What is the infraction? That he made a strange (in your opinion bid)? He didn't reopen with a minimum opener, not everyone has to play bridge the same way, that is certainly something that many people would do. If you think that his partner broke tempo either too fast or too slow then I would understand your point but if he did nothing unusual I don't see the problem, south is free to do whatever they want. If you think all players should have to play bridge the same way and reopen at the 3 level vul with a 12 count then that seems pretty bad.

 

Dear Justin

 

You scared me a bit there by starting your reply by categorizing my post as rediculous - not your normal style - and as I read your edit, you later found out that you misunderstood me, something you rarely do either :)

 

Just to be absolutely precise:

* According to my interpretation North acted absolutely correct after the "Stop 3♣ bid": about 10-15 seconds of break showing a regular interest in the bid and his own considerations, then passing.

What I was searching from this Expert Forum and players of your caliber was comments on whether a Double by South should be a "mandatory"/"automatic"/"no judgement" situation with a normal opening hand and 4441-distribution, simply to avoid any speculations about unauthorized information (which is really hard not to give in this situation, and may happen at a very subtle level for partners in a long-time partnership, when playing without screens).

 

So, I hope and think the discussion has some merit. None of us like to be in mandatory situations when playing bridge. However, when we decide which conventions to play and declare them to our opponents, we make the decisions in advance to always reply to Stayman and Blackwood, and almost always open a 12-counter (put in the number you prefer!). Obviously we do that in order to score as much as possible, and passing in those situations would almost by guarantee lead to a poorer score for us. In practice, these bids therefore become "mandatory". The reason for making a "mandatory" double in my example is quite different. It may lead to a better score (in my opinion it will in most cases), but there is a subtantial risk, it will not. However, I believe we have made the decision to "always" double with hands like that, already on the day we decided to play negative doubles over preemptive bidding. So in my opinion, there should be no judgement/table feeling/score considerations involved in South decision to double, it is not just the arguably best bridge decision, it is an automatic consequence of the conventional agreement and simply must be made to avoid the risk of being accused of acting differently due to some unintended small hint from partner.

 

Kind regards

 

Niels

[gnasher]

I think what you're saying is this:

 

If there is an action which is automatic, you shouldn't be allowed to use your table presence to choose some other action, because what you think is table presence may in fact be subconscious use of UI.

The problem with this type of rule is that we now have to make a judgement as to whether an action is, in fact, automatic. That's complex because:

- You think it's automatic to double on the example hand, but somebody else might not. (FWIW, I wouldn't double.)

- It might be automatic in most partnerships, but not in this particular partnership. This particular North might tend to bid an immediate 3NT more often than other Norths, so there is less need to cater for a penalty double. This particular North might make negative doubles more freely than other Norths, so there is less need to cater for a major-suit fit.

- South might have picked up something from the opponents' tempo or demeanour. That's an important part of the game, and it would be a great shame if we made that skill unusable in all sorts of everyday situations.

 

You're also imposing a duty on South to decide what is automatic. That means that he has to spend some of his time answering the question "What would my peers do?" instead of "What is the right action?". That will make his decision-making less good, so he will play worse bridge.

 

We already have a rule that constrains people's actions when they have UI. Every good player dislikes being in that situation, because it stops them using their judgement, which makes the game less skilful and less enjoyable. You're suggesting extending that rule to situations where there is no detectable UI. These situations occur much more often than situations where there is UI. So, everyone will be in a situation that they dislike and where they are obliged to play worse bridge, far more often than they are at present.

 

In any case, there is a much better solution to the problem: screens.

Edited July 15, 2013 by gnasher

[sfi]

The problem with this type of rule is that we now have to make a judgement as to whether an action is, in fact, automatic. That's complex because:

- You think it's automatic to double on the example hand, but somebody else might not. (FWIW, I wouldn't double.)

[...]

- South might have picked up something from the opponents' tempo or demeanour. That's an important part of the game, and it would be a great shame if we made that skill unusable in all sorts of everyday situations.

 

Indeed - one can pick up all sorts of information from opponents' flickers. Last week I held a hand very similar to this, where LHO overcalled in my singleton at the one level. RHO thought about something and I decided to pass despite it being a clear reopening double situation. Problem was, they now got to play in their 26 count game at the one level. Lucky? Undoubtedly, and I am likely to double next time even with the flicker. But I would have a real problem if they now received a favourable adjustment after they were the ones who both stuffed up and passed extraneous information.

 

If this becomes a mandatory double situation, the skill of reading your opponents is significantly reduced. Apart from all the other points that gnasher brings up, this approach is dumbing down the game to try and achieve something fairly negligible.

[nielsfoged]

I think what you're saying is this:

 

If there is an action which is automatic, you shouldn't be allowed to use your table presence to choose some other action, because what you think is table presence may in fact be subconscious use of UI.

...

 

ohhhh Gnasher

You are putting me in a difficult position there! In your footnote you write: "No need to repeat your uninformed, vacuous opinion 32159 times. We understood you the first time. - Gwnn", and at the same time you make a guess of what I tried to state, and probably expect me to confirm that... :rolleyes:

 

However, you are absolutely right: that is the issue that I am raising in my post.

 

As you do, also I foresee the problems for players and TDs, that such a policy would cause. That is: not being allowed to use table presence in certain well defined situations, as a consequence of the conventions you have freely decided to play and declare.

 

Today, most high level players have given up the direct penalty double after opponent's preemptive bid, and their conventional agreement (e.g. "negative double") will give them more points if they administer it well. However, everyone agrees that the advantages (and disadvantages) of conventions must derive from the biddings and definitely not from UI associated with that, such as hesitations before passing the preemptive bid. The difficult part is when there is a substantial risk of subtle unintended hints your partner may give even when trying his best to avoid giving UI, and which actually may be picked up only by a long-time partner, and even then maybe only subconsciously.

 

That is practically impossible to regulate for (except by use of screens, which at least help a lot). So one possible solution (good or bad: that is the discussion!) is to accept that when having agreed to playing "negative doubles over preempts", that convention includes automatically re-opening a regular 4-4-4-1 hand with a Double. I would be willing to accept that tiny reduction in to my freedom-to-operate, if that would be a requirement for being allowed to play such negative doubles. Would you?

 

/Niels

[helene_t]

Of course if this pair played "automatic" reopenings with a minimum 4441, S would have doubled. Aparently they don't. Or maybe, as Gnasher suggests, S may have some AI (from his RHO's hesitation, for example) that made him pass.

 

I wouldn't personally speculate much about South's pass if this hapened to me. But if I were to guess South's motives, I would think that most likely this pair just agreeed that a reopening double shows extras in this situation. As Adam says, this is a quite reasonable agreement for a pair that plays weak NT. And I would think that the second most likely explanation is that South is being overly ethical, as Justin suggests.

Edited July 15, 2013 by helene_t

[Cyberyeti]

As has already been pointed out, the only time anything has seriously gone wrong needing adjusting is where an opp breaks tempo with rubbish, thus causing his partner who would have reopened not to.

 

I would always reopen with that hand and would do so regardless of hesitation, we trap pass more often than most, and if I've decided I have an opening bid and I have a singleton in opps' suit, then I'm obliged to double, but I respect that other people don't necessarily play that way.

[gordontd]

You are putting me in a difficult position there! In your footnote you write: "No need to repeat your uninformed, vacuous opinion 32159 times. We understood you the first time. - Gwnn"

I think you misunderstand - it's a sig, in which he has quoted a line from a post by someone else (gwnn) about yet another person (32159). None of it has anything to do with you at all.

[gnasher]

I think it was fine to call the director. You thought that an infraction might have occurred and that you might have been damaged, and you followed the proper procedure for dealing with such a situation. You're allowed to be wrong about whether there was actually an infraction, just as you're allowed to wrong about any other matters of bridge judgement.

 

It's far better to call the director than to do nothing at the time but talk about it afterwards (or post it on the internet) in a situation where the opponent can't defend his actions.

 

Also, the opponents have no reason to take offence at your director call. When you allege a breach of the UI rules, you're not accusing anyone of cheating. You're "accusing" them of one of the following:

- Not consciously being aware of the UI.

- Not understanding their obligations in the presence of UI.

- Misjudgement in determining the implications of the UI.

- Misjudgement in determining what the logical alternatives are.

None of these is a reason to be offended - we all have imperfect judgement and imperfect awareness of what's going on around us, and nearly all of us have an imperfect understanding of the rules.

[gnasher]

I think you misunderstand - it's a sig, in which he has quoted a line from a post by someone else (gwnn) about yet another person (32159). None of it has anything to do with you at all.

I was about to say the same to Niels by private message. In fact, I generally find Niels's posts interesting, informed and not at all repetitive.

[Vampyr]

weak 1NT(12-14), 1 minor opening = ?

 

I know some players play this 1 minor opening = extremely weak, just around 10-11 HCP. So this pass with means below 10 and unable to takeout at 3 level.

 

Weak notrumpers do not open 10-11 (semi)balanced hands, unless they are upgrading an 11-count or including it in their opening.

 

So one possible solution (good or bad: that is the discussion!) is to accept that when having agreed to playing "negative doubles over preempts", that convention includes automatically re-opening a regular 4-4-4-1 hand with a Double. I would be willing to accept that tiny reduction in to my freedom-to-operate, if that would be a requirement for being allowed to play such negative doubles. Would you?

 

I certainly would not, but you can. If you like, you can set maximum combinations of strength/shape below which your partnership, depending on position, vulnerability and auction-to-date, cannot pass. I don't know how many pairs set these limits explicitly.

[mikeh]

I agree with everything Andy wrote in his first post. I don't feel quite the same way about his approval of your calling the director.

 

I'd agree if the choice were call the director or simply put it on the internet, but if those were the options, I'd do neither.

 

As it is, I understand, I think, why you chose to do both and you have done an excellent job of ensuring that nobody can read your story as a criticism of the ethics of your opps.

 

However, when the opps clearly did nothing wrong...when there is nothing that suggests even the possibility of UI...then I think it was wrong to call the director. One calls a director to make a ruling when one thinks that something untoward has happened, whether intentionally or otherwise. We shouldn't be calling the director merely because we don't like the bidding decision made by an opp, when there was zero reason to suspect UI.

 

I'd love to have heard the explanation given to the director.

 

'The opps acted with perfect ethics, in perfect tempo, got a terrible result, and we think that S made an unusual decision: please apply the Laws to this situation'

 

If I were the director, I'd look bemused. If I were an opp, I'd be pissed. We got a bad board from one of us making a decision that worked out poorly. All of that I could live with, and I'd expect that N and S would, after the session, talk about the hand to see if this was simply a system fix...a hand that fell in the seams of their methods (in which case maybe they think about a tweak to the system)...or whether in hindsight one or both of them ought to have done something different. To have a director call seems like adding insult to injury.

 

As for the decision to pass, in my view any attempt to impose upon players a requirement that they display consistency in their actions, or that they conform to the expectations of others in their system design, is foolish beyond words.

 

Bridge is not played by robots, at least not in the real world, and attempts to make people play robotically ruin the game.

 

Finally, what does one do as an ethical S if S perceives that his partner took a little longer than usual to pass. You noted that N took 10-15 seconds. What if N usually takes 7-12 seconds and S thinks he took 15? S perceives a break in tempo, which you didn't notice because you aren't familiar with N's habits. S passes because he feels constrained by this UI, and he gets a bad result, which causes him little, if any, concern because that's how we play the game. Then you call the director on him.

 

Bad enough in the actual scenario, but what if defending undoubled got a good result? You still call the director, even tho you have zero suspicion of improper conduct of any kind, and what is the director to do?

 

There is more to this than I have covered so far, but I have gone on too long, as is often the case :P

[dake50]

You miss proper WEASEL technique.

The pass over 3C must show no interest as a proper

NegX is in tempo; whereas a trap pass double is long BIT.

[nielsfoged]

...

However, when the opps clearly did nothing wrong...when there is nothing that suggests even the possibility of UI...then I think it was wrong to call the director. One calls a director to make a ruling when one thinks that something untoward has happened, whether intentionally or otherwise. We shouldn't be calling the director merely because we don't like the bidding decision made by an opp, when there was zero reason to suspect UI.

...

I'd love to have heard the explanation given to the director.

...

If I were the director, I'd look bemused. If I were an opp, I'd be pissed.

...

As for the decision to pass, in my view any attempt to impose upon players a requirement that they display consistency in their actions, or that they conform to the expectations of others in their system design, is foolish beyond words.

...

Finally, what does one do as an ethical S if S perceives that his partner took a little longer than usual to pass. You noted that N took 10-15 seconds. What if N usually takes 7-12 seconds and S thinks he took 15? S perceives a break in tempo, which you didn't notice because you aren't familiar with N's habits. S passes because he feels constrained by this UI, and he gets a bad result, which causes him little, if any, concern because that's how we play the game. Then you call the director on him.

 

Bad enough in the actual scenario, but what if defending undoubled got a good result? You still call the director, even tho you have zero suspicion of improper conduct of any kind, and what is the director to do?

...

 

Hello Mike

 

Thank you for your comment even if it shows that you disagree with my actions. My reason for calling the TD was astonishment of finding South with a - in my view! - perfect shape for a re-opening with a double, a bid which I expected to be not only systematic, but also consistently bid by almost all pairs, who have decided to play and declare "Negative Doubles over preempts".

 

Whenever I read "Stayman" on opponent's convention card and 1NT-opener replies 2♦ to 2♣, I base my subsequent decisions of that board on the expectation of 1NT-opener having no major 4(5) card suit. I know that 1NT opener can choose not to show his major over 2♣, but almost all pairs "display consistency in their actions" in that situation. Admittedly, my expectation of consistency in re-opening with 4-4-4-1 and 12 hcp is more speculative than replying correctly to Stayman, but for me the actual hand was a text book Double. Also, I have to admit, that I (East) had no more decisions to make on the actual board, since I became dummy in 3♣. Alone for that reason, I should probably not have called the TD, but I did since my partner did not (he is kinder than me, and understands the rules better than I do).

 

There are a couple of issues you bring up, Mike, which I like to comment on:

* You say: "One calls a director... ...when one thinks that something untoward has happened, whether intentionally or otherwise...". I am not sure I know what "untoward" exactly means (Webster's has 3 defintions: "unruly/intractable", "unlucky/adverse" and "improper/indecorous" - I guess it is the later meaning you refer to). However, with my admittedly little insights in the bridge laws, I felt that "pass" included all 3 of those aspects, and simply wanted the TD to look at it with competence.

* You say: "If I were the director, I'd look bemused. If I were an opp, I'd be pissed.". That is exactly what happened :P

Yesterday, I appologized in writing to my opponents, and referred them to this post. Today, I consider doing the same to the TD - maybe he will then comment here on how he interpreted my explanation, which obviously was less detailed and well-considered compared to this post mortem post (we were in an important MP-tournament with 21 minutes per round of 3 boards).

* You ask: "...what if defending undoubled got a good result [for my opponents]?". Actually, I am very happy that I called the TD even though we got 90% on the board. If we had scored poorly, I am sure that most of you in this forum, my opponents, and probably also the TD would have been very concerned, that I was trying to make up for a bad result by trying to get compensation from the TD. This was obviously not the case!

 

PS: I am almost certain, that South did not perceive any break in tempo, and that he passed because he in any circumstance believed it to be the best bridge decision (and obviously did not find any obligations to double with the actual hand despite playing Negative Doubles) - maybe he will comment on that here too?

 

/Niels