What the heck?

[biggerclub]

[hv=pc=n&e=s653hj8632d432c97&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=2np(Partner%20asks%20if%202NT%20has%20a%20conventional%20meaning.)3hp3sdp]133|200[/hv]

 

Is this TO or Business?

 

Is partner's query UI? (It is not unusual for him to ask about seemingly standard calls.) (Edit: I mean does partner's query suggest anything about the double and if so does it suggest it strongly enough that I must change an otherwise indicated action in a close case.)

 

Edit: 3♥ is a transfer and was described as such.

[mgoetze]

Is partner's query UI? (It is not unusual for him to ask about seemingly standard calls.)

Of course - all of partner's queries are UI. Why would they ever be AI?

[biggerclub]

Of course - all of partner's queries are UI. Why would they ever be AI?

 

Maybe I should rephrase my question: In terms of ACBL active ethics policy, am I obligated to resolve uncertainty in one direction or the other?

[karlson]

a) it's takeout

 

b) probably the right way to rephrase the question is "does partner's question suggest anything in particular". I don't think it does -- partner might want to ask about the auction regardless of how he meant his double, especially if he's the type to ask lots of questions normally.

[whereagles]

Undiscussed bids are natural, so I say penalties.

[Fluffy]

I am looking at my hand and it says it is take out. BTW I can't read partne's questions as it goes out of bounds.

[BillPatch]

From the lack of a "transfer" note, we can presume that when we check the convention card it will say 3♥ is natural. Wit my 3 and opener's normal minimum of 2 there are 8 unknown ♠, presumably partner has some good ones.

[BillPatch]

If 2NT were alertable, queries about it would not be UI. Since no bids were marked alertable, we may presume that everything is natural, although partner's double suggests that the 3♠ cue bid might be psychic.

[Vampyr]

If 2NT were alertable, queries about it would not be UI.

 

This is not true.

[BillPatch]

This is not true.

I'll restate that, "A simple query for an explanation would not be UI, since under the alert process, it is authorized as expected and protected speech."

[mgoetze]

I'll restate that, "A simple query for an explanation would not be UI, since under the alert process, it is authorized as expected and protected speech."

And it's still not true. Again, partner's queries are always UI, as I said at the beginning of the thread.

[biggerclub]

From the lack of a "transfer" note, we can presume that when we check the convention card it will say 3♥ is natural. Wit my 3 and opener's normal minimum of 2 there are 8 unknown ♠, presumably partner has some good ones.

 

This is a good catch, but 3♥ is a transfer and was described as such. My fault on the post again.

[jdgalt]

Assuming that 2NT promises a balanced hand and the transfer promises 5 spades, West can have at most 3. That's not a business double.

[biggerclub]

Partner's hand:

 

[hv=pc=n&w=sakqha9dkj6cj843]133|100[/hv]

 

The scores:

 

-50 8.5

-100 3.74

-150 2.15

-500 0.56

-50 8.5

500 16.97

100 12.21

200 14.85

-500 0.56

200 14.85

-90 5.32

100 12.21

-100 3.74

-50 8.5

200 14.85

-50 8.5

-50 8.5

 

Turns out that S had a 19 count with a 5 card club suit that she upgraded to 20 count. The -50s are for 2♥ (for the most part). The +500 is for 2NT x -2 (yes NS were V among all the other things I screwed up presenting the hand). The other -500 is for 3NT x'd.

 

Once I saw dummy (I took the X out to 4♥) I realized what prompted the query.

 

After multiple email exchanges, partner and I have decided that all X's over 2NT or over 1 min - 1 something - 2NT are penalty and the only way to take out is to overcall 2NT with 3NT or 4NT or to steal an interruption cue bid after attempted transfer ((2NT) - P - (3♥) - 3♠ = TO).

[Zelandakh]

After multiple email exchanges, partner and I have decided that all X's over 2NT or over 1 min - 1 something - 2NT are penalty

It might be even more useful to agree that all delayed doubles of 2NT and related sequences are not preceded by a round of unnecessary UI-giving. Changing your agreements to something that might come up once a decade as a reaction to a single hand is not always a great idea. As an example change the ♥A in your partner's hand to ♦A and add a spade (to make it up to 13 cards). Now assume the same auction as the OP except that they transfer to hearts instead of spades and add whatever you want that so that you are not taking action over 2NT but do not want to leave them in 3♥. How does your partner think this hand should be bid? Which of these 2 hands types do you think is more important?

 

I am quite sure that if partner had held that hand they would have doubled 3♥ without UI and neither of you would have thought anything of it. This illustrates the reasons for the UI laws and also shows just how much goes on at club level - I doubt your opponents would have called the director if you had left the double in, for example. If it were my partner I would have a word with her about it - but I am well aware that many club pairs think such hints are part of the game and are even glad when their partner tries to help them "get it right".

 

Finally, it is good to agree a defence to transfers generally. The two most popular are for a double to show the suit bid and a cue to be a good takeout, with a delayed double being a shapely tekeout; and for double to be takeout and the cue to be Michaels. Another popular method in the Weak NT world is for an initial double just to show values. Ideally you find something you and your partner can agree on and can then extend it to many other sitations without having to remember specific cases, especially rare ones such as this.

 

Directly over a 2NT opening, the simplest is to use your normal Strong NT defence with appropriate adjustments for being a level higher with a big hand on your right. Even if it is not 100% optimal, you will at least not forget it and can get on with learning more important components of the system instead.

[ahydra]

Partner should surely double 2NT with a balanced 18-count. Though hopefully he/she also had a 13th card.

 

ahydra

[AyunuS]

It kinda shouldn't be a penalty double here. Given that opener has 2♠, you have 3♠ and the other opponent has 5♠, at least, then your partner has at most 3♠, which he/she would not bother making a penalty double with without a hand strong enough to double or bid against 2NT. So I feel it can't be a penalty double so your only option left is to bid 4♥.

[biggerclub]

Though hopefully he/she also had a 13th card.

 

ahydra

 

In keeping with my inability to report any facts about the hand clearly. I am almost certain that Partner's 13th card is a small ♦.

 

I do think 2NT - X is the best way to start the auction, but I also think that twisting into a pretzel in order to avoid blaming partner is the best way to long term positive results.

[helene_t]

Double is take-out for many reasons. One of them is that it is rarely a good idea to double them in a partscore when for all you know they are on their way to game. Just pass, if they bid on to game you can double them then. For the same reason, don't double a 2NT opening for penalties. OK, with this particular hand p is strong enough not to expect them to bid on, but you rarely have a hand like that.

 

But the main reason why double is t/o is this: Opps have indicated only one suit and we haven't indicated any, so there are three suits in which we could have a fit. And there is nothing in the auction that suggests that partner doesn't have a hand suitable for a takeout double (unless, maybe, we play something like Ripstra so a three-suited hand short in spades could have bid directly over 2NT).

[Phil]

Partner thinks it's takeout and I think it's penalty. Looking at my hand it's probably takeout.

 

BTW am I the only one that thinks a problem like this should be presented without the benefit of looking at our hand.

 

Would people really so adamant about takeout if we were 1444?

[Phil]

Further if the auction is 2C 2D 2N 3H 3S x this is still takeout??

[biggerclub]

Directly over a 2NT opening, the simplest is to use your normal Strong NT defence with appropriate adjustments for being a level higher with a big hand on your right. Even if it is not 100% optimal, you will at least not forget it and can get on with learning more important components of the system instead.

 

Parnter and I play . . . bidding is mandatory over their 1NT. Well not quite, but almost. Any suit is a single suiter. X is the start of a 2 suiter sequence. We exercise more judgment in the balancing seat where action becomes constructive not destructive. But in any case, we can't do that over 2NT.

 

I think that we will more often, if still only once a decade, want to X for penalty than TO. I worked through a bunch of the possibilities and just could not find anything that made X for TO appealing.

 

In general over a 2NT opening, I think X'ing if you're going to beat it is best. After looking over the various possibilities away from the table.

[Finch]

Directly over a 2NT opening, the simplest is to play all bids as natural.

On this auction, double of 3S is take-out. I was surprised at having as few as 3 spades, because I'd expect a spade void opposite for this with something like - KQxxx KJxxx xxx. A bit unlikely, but more likely than a penalty double.