Yes, I'm going to double

[Hanoi5]

[hv=d=e&v=n&b=2&a=pp1cp1h2sdppp]133|100[/hv]

 

West opened the bidding and over the pre-emptive jump played a little with her bidding box, taking the double out, putting it in, etc. She finally grabbed the double and said 'Yes, yes I'm gonna double'. West apparently passed without even looking at her cards. A poll with players who held East's cards said they'd pass the double, too.

 

You probably want to have a look at the deal, so:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt9873hkdjt843c5&w=sk542haq9dkckqjt3&n=sjh86542d965ca976&e=sa6hjt73daq72c842&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=pp1cp1h2s(Weak)d(West%20played%20with%20her%20bidding%20box%20and%20finally%20said%20%20%27Yes%2C%20I%27m%20gonna%20double%27)ppp]399|300[/hv]

 

I proposed to leave the result (-500, 75% for E/W and 25% for N/S) and punish E/W for their breach of properties with a top (that will get them to the last place, not that anyone cares). How would you rule?

[ggwhiz]

3nt, 4♥ and 5♣ or a few slams are all legit landing spots for E/W and a lot more legit than this in a smooth auction.

 

I can't figure out the probabilities and would like to award Avg+ to the innocent N/S and minus whatever makes a complete bottom plus a few hundred for emphasis to E/W. Oh, maybe throw in a PP.

[Hanoi5]

3nt, 4♥ and 5♣ or a few slams are all legit landing spots for E/W and a lot more legit than this in a smooth auction.

 

I can't figure out the probabilities and would like to award Avg+ to the innocent N/S and minus whatever makes a complete bottom plus a few hundred for emphasis to E/W. Oh, maybe throw in a PP.

 

 

So you'll punish E/W and reward N/S for their reckless action?

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt9873hkdjt843c5&w=sk542haq9dkckqjt3&n=sjh86542d965ca976&e=sa6hjt73daq72c842&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=pp1cp1h2s(Weak)d(West%20played%20with%20her%20bidding%20box%20and%20finally%20said%20%20%27Yes%2C%20I%27m%20gonna%20double%27)ppp]399|300| West opened the bidding and over the pre-emptive jump played a little with her bidding box, taking the double out, putting it in, etc. She finally grabbed the double and said 'Yes, yes I'm gonna double'. West apparently passed without even looking at her cards. A poll with players who held East's cards said they'd pass the double, too.

I proposed to leave the result (-500, 75% for E/W and 25% for N/S) and punish E/W for their breach of properties with a top (that will get them to the last place, not that anyone cares). How would you rule? [/hv]

What's the systemic meaning of double? The director should ask so that he can tell the polling group. If "T/O", "No agreement", or undefined on system-card, then the TD might be reluctant to allow the result to stand for NS, even if he has imposed a PP on EW.

[Cyberyeti]

So you'll punish E/W and reward N/S for their reckless action?

 

I don't feel 2♠ is SEWoG, so they're innocent as far as this is concerned. Partner doesn't need much to make 2♠

 

It will take a fair amount for EW to convince me that X is not T/O here, but if they do play it as pens, there is no problem, this is an obvious pass, but a PP is fine.

[Hanoi5]

East is an old 'pro', probably the one pro who charges less for classes in our club. She doesn't have great agreements with her partners. She uses a hearing aid and hates to have the Director called to her table. She REALLY hates it. She usually plays the dummy for her partner and has even been seen NOT to accept a play by her partner as dummy.

 

West has no idea of the game. Her double could be more penalty than take-out. East apparently said it was a support double (!) but then somebody told her it couldn't be that and she didn't know what to say.

 

Several players were polled and they agreed to pass the double without the hesitation, bidding-box maneuvering and comment by West. I'm perfectly aware that East-West committed a 'crime' but why reward N/S for their wild action? (I do consider it a wild action at these colours and being MP's).

[Vampyr]

I'm perfectly aware that East-West committed a 'crime' but why reward N/S for their wild action? (I do consider it a wild action at these colours and being MP's).

 

A "wild" action before the infraction is not relevant when making a ruling.

[Trinidad]

The job for the TD: Figure out what double meant.

 

If Double = penalty then

     Let result stand

     Warn EW (West) or give a PP

Else

     Give adjusted score (probably 3NT+3) for both sides since bidding with the East hand will be an LA.

     Give a PP. (Pro East should know better.)

End If

 

Whether 2♠ was reckless, wild, or Roth-Stone solid is neither here nor there. It was a bid that was made before the infraction. This will not be changed.

 

(And you can say whatever you want about 2♠, but it kept EW out of the ice cold 6♣. Unfortunately, this EW were not very likely to reach 6♣.)

 

Rik

[Hanoi5]

===============================

BOARD 2

NS EW NS+ NS- MP MP

===============================

1 15 -490 9 13

8 28 -490 9 13

9 17 -990 0 22

10 19 -490 9 13

11 21 -460 15 7

12 23 -800 2 20

13 25 -120 22 0

14 27 -420 19 3

20 4 -420 19 3

22 5 -460 15 7

24 6 -500 4 18

26 7 -490 9 13

===============================

=============================== ===============================

 

It was board N° 2. 3NT +3 would be a little better for N/S. I think it would be impossible to discern the meaning of double right now. Only one pair got to the slam, two pairs played in 2 Spades doubled (the other one went one down too many).

[WellSpyder]

I think it would be impossible to discern the meaning of double right now.

Fair enough. But the TD really needs to make some effort to find out whether there is any agreement over the meaning of the double at the time. It is impossible to come to any sensible conclusions about the LAs or what is suggested by UI without forming some view over what the actual auction showed.

[Trinidad]

West has no idea of the game. Her double could be more penalty than take-out. East apparently said it was a support double (!) but then somebody told her it couldn't be that and she didn't know what to say.

Just to get this 100% clear: East apparently said it was a support double after this board was played? (Which is not as impossible as you (or the "somebody") may think.)

 

That makes this easy: Adjust the score for both sides and EW get a PP. Without the antics, West could easily have the diamonds and the spades switched. Don't tell me that East wants to pass opposite a hand like that.

 

Rik

[TylerE]

' but why reward N/S for their wild action? (I do consider it a wild action at these colours and being MP's).

 

Again, being MPs, I ahve a hard time believing ANYTHING is SWEoG when one holds the spade suit.

[gordontd]

West opened the bidding and over the pre-emptive jump played a little with her bidding box, taking the double out, putting it in, etc. She finally grabbed the double and said 'Yes, yes I'm gonna double'. West apparently passed without even looking at her cards.

Do you mean East?

 

I proposed to leave the result (-500, 75% for E/W and 25% for N/S) and punish E/W for their breach of properties with a top (that will get them to the last place, not that anyone cares).

I don't think I understand what any of this means.

[Fluffy]

Hanoi wants to punnish NS for some reason, there is nothing in the laws that allows it, whatever they did that you (And only you) think its bad, they did it before the infraction.

 

If West is a total beginner do not issue a PP, just explain him why he shouldn't do that.

If West is experienced issue a PP or he will keep doing the same.

 

The peers that you asked are most likely biased for knowing the full hand, or know the west player better.

 

I play with a partner who passed my double after 1♠-(3♣) thinking it is penalty, if he ever doubled on a spot like this I would have to guess what is going on, however he doesn't think about his actions, he just takes them.