Serious error?

[lamford]

I think you mean "If Mr Smug is partnering Futile Willie in the other room and their opponents also bid to 6NT."

 

The relevant question is not how often you'll win the board, but how often you'll convert a tie to a win or a loss to a tie, compared with how often you'll convert a tie to a loss or (counted double) a win to a loss.

The relevant question is indeed the expected number of points on a scale of -2 to +2 (or -1 to +1, it does not matter). The other room might also be 6C-1 or 6D-1 as well when double will gain. It is surely far more likely that the score in the other room will be +100 than the opponents would run to 7 of a suit and make it, the relevant comparison. If South can transfer, they are about twice as likely to successfully run, but I think double is still the winner. I would estimate the score from doubling to average +1.5 and from not doubling to average +0.25. What is your estimate?

[billw55]

I would not double. Although, the subtleties of BAM are not something I understand well; there may be valid reasons to double, some presented here.

 

One question, why do people keep talking about +50, or double changing that to +100? The diagram in the OP shows both sides vulnerable, as does the one in the linked thread. I guess it makes no difference at BAM, but it was throwing me off a bit.

[lamford]

One question, why do people keep talking about +50, or double changing that to +100? The diagram in the OP shows both sides vulnerable, as does the one in the linked thread. I guess it makes no difference at BAM, but it was throwing me off a bit.

Well spotted. The comparison is indeed between +100 and +200. I have corrected the ones I could.

[jogs]

Only if the other table is also in 6NTS, is it necessary to double. BAM: you don't get extra points by winning the board by more.

[aguahombre]

The runout/rightsiding agreements date back at least 40 years and, against an expert pair, doubling with AK in a Major has risks which have been acknowledged by experts for at least that long.

 

Back in the 70's, the District 23 Final of the Grand Natl. Teams attracted 30-40 contenders. In the RR phase our mediocre squad faced one of the elites. Partner doubled 6N holding something like JXX QX QJX XXXXX, producing a 14-IMP swing when we defended 7D undoubled.

[mikeh]

I would not double. Although, the subtleties of BAM are not something I understand well; there may be valid reasons to double, some presented here.

 

One question, why do people keep talking about +50, or double changing that to +100? The diagram in the OP shows both sides vulnerable, as does the one in the linked thread. I guess it makes no difference at BAM, but it was throwing me off a bit.

It makes no difference in any form of scoring, unless you are assuming that the other table(s) will be in 6N as well.

 

At imps, there is no gain for doubling a slam for a 1 trick set, if your teammates are in, say, 3 or 4N, and this is true regardless of vulnerability.

 

At mps or BAM, it obviously makes zero difference, again assuming that your teammates have avoided this spot.

[mgoetze]

The players involved are experts. Hence this is the appropriate forum.

 

The poll is public, so you can see who votes for what. Many of those who have voted are experts, even if they don't meet Mgoetze's standards. Super-experts like Mgoetze can help redress any imbalance by voting too :)

The fact that you consider me a "super-expert" only calls into question your qualification to judge that the players in the original hand were experts, since I myself am not an expert at all. :P

[lamford]

Only if the other table is also in 6NTS, is it necessary to double. BAM: you don't get extra points by winning the board by more.

If the other table is in 6 of anything going 1 off, double will win the board (assuming they do not run). You do get extra points by winning the board instead of tieing it.

[lamford]

The runout/rightsiding agreements date back at least 40 years

So the convention is both "silly" and "old", clearly. I must say that I have seen the run-out, but cannot find a hand where transfers were used. No doubt you have a better library than me, and can point me to an example hand.

[lamford]

The runout/rightsiding agreements date back at least 40 years and, against an expert pair, doubling with AK in a Major has risks which have been acknowledged by experts for at least that long.

I can also see that you voted in favour of "serious error". Clearly the US definition is much more draconian than the British one. In the UK, a serious error is covered by the White Book:

 

It should be rare to consider an action a ‘serious error’. In general only the following types of action would be covered:

 

Failure to follow proper legal procedure (e.g. revoking, creating a major penalty card, leading out of turn, not calling the TD after an irregularity).

 

Blatantly ridiculous calls or plays, such as ducking the setting trick against a slam, or opening a weak NT with a 20-count. Such errors should be considered in relation to the class of the player concerned; beginners are expected to make beginners’ errors and should not be penalised for doing so.

 

An error in the play in or defence to a contract which was only reached as a consequence of the infraction should be treated especially leniently.

[aguahombre]

Well, my opinion about the runouts is based on what I already said about two aces and going down more at 7 than at six, plus my opinion that the AK hands shouldn't double ---making the two aces or psyche double infinitely more likely in a strong game.

 

My vote for serious error would not apply to a SEWog ruling, because there is no offense for which it is related or unrelated. So, I don't need to apply any jurisdiction's standards..it is just an opinion. If I were called upon in some other instance to decide if that double were SEWog, I would say no.

[ArtK78]

I can also see that you voted in favour of "serious error". Clearly the US definition is much more draconian than the British one. In the UK, a serious error is covered by the White Book:

 

It should be rare to consider an action a ‘serious error’. In general only the following types of action would be covered:

 

Failure to follow proper legal procedure (e.g. revoking, creating a major penalty card, leading out of turn, not calling the TD after an irregularity).

 

Blatantly ridiculous calls or plays, such as ducking the setting trick against a slam, or opening a weak NT with a 20-count. Such errors should be considered in relation to the class of the player concerned; beginners are expected to make beginners’ errors and should not be penalised for doing so.

 

An error in the play in or defence to a contract which was only reached as a consequence of the infraction should be treated especially leniently.

We are discussing bidding judgment, not anything having to do with procedural matters or, as you refer to them, "blatantly ridiculous calls or plays." The question is how one judges the double of 6NT on this auction. Comparing the double of 6NT to "ducking the setting trick against a slam, or opening a weak NT with a 20-count" is totally inappropriate under these circumstances. A very narrow question was posed, and the poster asks for a judgment of the double in the context of expert play.

[lamford]

We are discussing bidding judgment, not anything having to do with procedural matters or, as you refer to them, "blatantly ridiculous calls or plays." The question is how one judges the double of 6NT on this auction. Comparing the double of 6NT to "ducking the setting trick against a slam, or opening a weak NT with a 20-count" is totally inappropriate under these circumstances. A very narrow question was posed, and the poster asks for a judgment of the double in the context of expert play.

The thread was cross-referenced at the start to the Laws and Rulings section, and in that gnasher speculated that doubling was a serious error unrelated to the putative infraction, clearly the legal use of the phrase. I agree that there are two ways to interpret "serious error", the general bridge one and the legal one. It would have been clearer if the intention was only to get an opinion on the merits of the bid to use an unambiguous phrase. "Bad call" comes to mind.

 

But even if we use the more general use of serious error, my opinion is that even thinking about classing double as a serious error at BAM is a mistake. It will gain most of the time, and lose rarely. It would be good if we had a few more opinions from top players, as the current poll is indecisive.

[gnasher]

The thread was cross-referenced at the start to the Laws and Rulings section, and in that gnasher speculated that doubling was a serious error unrelated to the putative infraction ...

It was an assertion, not mere speculation, but you've persuaded me that I was wrong.

 

Edit: Having said that, I think this:

It will gain most of the time

is an overstatement. Teammates may not be in slam, or they may be in a suit slam making on the wrong lead, or they may be in a suit slam with LHO having a singleton spade. Still, as you point out, all it has to do is gain more than it loses, and you're right that it will do that.

Edited September 19, 2013 by gnasher

[lamford]

Teammates may not be in slam, or they may be in a suit slam making on the wrong lead, or they may be in a suit slam with LHO having a singleton spade. Still, as you point out, all it has to do is gain more than it loses, and you're right that it will do that.

I am happy to accept your more balanced view; I am usually too dogmatic in my opinions. One further thought I had was that passing may lose the board whenever the auction is the same and West doubles in the other room.

[RSClyde]

I actually played 7nt once and the guy on lead had an ace and didn't double... not sure why.

I assume that we all agree that pass is clear at IMP's.

I would double. I understand that results like 7♣X making are possible, but it seems to require a lot:

1) They have somewhere to go.

2) Partner fails to find a spade lead.

3) The spades go away.

Yes those things can happen, the question is how likely is it vs picking up a 1/2 point by doubling?

 

If you double and they run to 7mX making then you'll never forget it! I heard several such stories. This however is more a point in favor of doubling: allow me to explain.

We don't have clear probabilities available here: we're all just trying to intuit this. I fully admit that I may have this wrong and the successful running hands are more common than I think. However I think the tendency is to avoid the dramatically bad result, rather than the mundanely bad result. Just like how almost no jeopardy contestant will risk enough on a daily double because going broke on the spot is dramatic, but pulling up short at the end somehow doesn't seem as bad.

[mycroft]

I remember being at trick 8 defending 7♠, with dummy and partner volubly wondering why there hasn't been a claim yet. "I still have the trump ace to lose." At which point the comments were about why there was no double. I did think - poorly, as further analysis of the auction would have told me - that doubling could lead to a "if partner doesn't lead 'trumps', -2220" situation. What I said was "if not doubling costs an IMP, I'll buy the team dinner" (and we were all 'starving' students, so this was a big bet). It didn't - and it wouldn't at BAM, either.

 

This is a different case, I think. What do I do with 13-Work and a long broken minor when partner opens 2NT at BAM? Same thing everybody does. So it's fairly likely that we have a matching auction. Now, if they can pull to the minor, and either there's a void, or they can engineer partner on lead and she guesses wrong, -2330 (which, I will admit, won't be any bigger zero than -2140). If they can't, we're going plus, and it's likely we have to double to push. Of course, if the other team's West is sitting there trying to figure out if I'm [smart|dumb] enough to double, or if their teammates are going to have this auction, well, then.

 

I might use the saying I quoted yesterday, and try not to lose the postmortem. I *think* it's going to go "yeah, that was unlucky, I can see where you might think it was the same auction in our room, and what's the chance anyway?" if I double and lose the board, and "isn't this an auto-double?" if I pass and lose the board (what happens if I pass and push the board is interesting as well). But there's a reason I'm not an Expert (or an Eeeeexpert, either, as my old teacher used to put it) - I could be wrong.

[quiddity]

Very surprised by the poll results and comments on this thread. To me double is beyond automatic at BAM. When I first read the OP I assumed gnasher had just missed the form of scoring or the fact that the AK hand was on lead. Anyway, 2N-6N is a straightforward auction that could easily occur at the other table. Catering for the parlay of their having a place to run, deciding to run, being able to let responder declare, being able to take 13 tricks if partner doesn't lead a spade, PLUS getting a non-spade lead from partner, strikes me as pretty silly.

 

It is hardly a no-brainer for them to run even if they have a landing place and the methods. From their point of view 6NT-X could easily be the contract at the other table. Unless someone has a stiff spade they are risking the board by running.

[ggwhiz]

The next day I saw the same hand in the bulletin:

 

Defending 1nt declarer had a hidden diamond fit and when pard switched to the stiff King, I overtook and fired one back from double Ace. I swore I would never again make a bulletin for being insane.

 

We drove home the next day and pard, reading the bulletin said "Wow, somebody defended that hand the same way we did." Ummmm nope and I almost hit the ditch.

[Fluffy]

Serious error would be not to lead from AK, like my partner did once with ♣AK10, he didn't even like to lead our suit spades (we had defended 6♠ over 6♥), but picked instead to underlead ♦Jxxx, sadly it was not a success.

[RSClyde]

How about an agreement on what doubling the runout means?

It seems silly to let them play the runout undoubled but not really: 7m -1 is the same as 6nt -1. You're already winning when the initial double ends the auction, and you scramble back to equity when they have a place to run.

So I say, after they run, X = lead a spade

pass = lead something else

(or some such thing) By reversing you could double more often so maybe that's right.

[Vampyr]

The fact that you consider me a "super-expert" only calls into question your qualification to judge that the players in the original hand were experts, since I myself am not an expert at all. :P

 

Perhaps not, but you are the arbiter of who is and who isn't. Well, someone has to guard the gates to the inner sanctum, right?

[mgoetze]

Perhaps not, but you are the arbiter of who is and who isn't. Well, someone has to guard the gates to the inner sanctum, right?

I'm glad you see it that way. ;)

[johnu]

BAM, I think the odds strongly favor a double. If the contract is 6NT at the other table, you win a full point instead of a half if there wasn't a double, and get a half if there was a double. If you don't double and they double at the other table and play 6NT-X, you are going to get a zero if you don't double. If they stopped in game, it doesn't make any difference. If they run to 7 of something with your partner on lead, you would have a disaster if partner leads the wrong suit and they make. If they bid 7 and you beat it, you are in very good position.

 

On the bidding, against good opponents, I think there's a good possibility that pretty much the same auction will happen at the other table (assuming your partners are of the same standard). Partner could lead your AK suit, and/or most likely there aren't 13 tricks off the top.

 

If this was IMPs, I think the odds still favor a double. Sure, there's a somewhat remote chance you will lose 20, but if they sit you avoid losing 3 IMPs if they play doubled at the other table, gain 3 IMPs if they play undoubled at the other table (And a small possibility that a 3rd (or more) spade trick to be cashed). If they run to 7 doubled and the AK cash, you're looking at a potential 9 IMP gain (500 - 100).

 

It's not a sure thing, but I'm in the doubler's camp.

[jdeegan]

:P Passing at IMPs - not really so bad due to the poor risk/reward ratio. Passing at BAM - just insane for the same reasons. So many hypothetical bad things have to happen for a double to go wrong. Also, what was the meaning of the 2NT bid? How does that compare with what my teammate is playing at the other table? Any table feel? This problem strikes me as more of an advanced/intermediate lesson.