SOS redouble

[VixTD]

In an inter-county teams-of-eight match yesterday (cross-IMPs -> VPs), the county third teams got up to the following:

[hv=pc=n&s=sakq4haj7dq973ca9&w=st862hdakjt642cj5&n=s973hqt652d85ct72&e=sj5hk9843dckq8643&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp2d(multi)4dppd(penalties)ppr(see%20below)pp4hppp]399|300[/hv]

South's multi showed a weak two in a major or a strong balanced 20-22 count.

North asked the meaning of East's redouble before his final bid. West struggled to explain it and said among other things "9+", and tried to refer North to the only place on her convention card where redouble was mentioned (which wasn't really relevant to this sequence). North asked some more questions before giving up and bidding 4♥.

 

4♥ went three off, and North called the director at the end of the hand to say that if he had been told the redouble was for rescue rather than a strength-showing manoeuvre he would have passed. The TD asked EW further about their agreements, whether they had agreed to play SOS redoubles in any other situations. They said they hadn't. Both East and West were familiar with the concept of SOS redoubles, and East obviously intended his call as such. West admitted that it might have been asking her to bid a suit, but she didn't have another suit to bid. North argued that of all the things West said about the redouble "SOS", "for rescue", "bid another suit" or similar were not included.

 

NS are a good, well-established partnership. EW are a fairly recent pairing, but play together fairly regularly.

 

What should the ruling be?

[1eyedjack]

Personally I would let the result stand.

 

I find it mildly amusing that East actually has the "9+" described by West, even though he clearly was not intending to show it.

 

It seems apparent to me that E/W did not have an agreement, and West erred in not simply so stating. In that respect N/S may be in receipt of misinformation. However it was probably apparent to N/S that West did not really have much of a clue what it meant.

 

Furthermore, I have difficulty arriving at damage caused by the misinformation. South has shown a balanced 20-22 count, which will include at least two diamonds, leaving East with not very many of them. Prospects for 10 tricks in Hearts look bleak. Although North has a pitiful defensive hand, prospects for 4 tricks in defence seem pretty good. Given the limitation on South, any remaining points not held by East are held by West and vice versa. Knowledge that East has 9+ of the combined limited values of E/W does not I think have a major bearing. If anything, the stronger East's hand at West's expense, the better prospects for defending.

 

I expect some dissenting views, and will be interested to read them.

[WellSpyder]

I expect some dissenting views, and will be interested to read them.

Not from me, I'm afraid - your assessment looks fine to me.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakq4haj7dq973ca9&w=st862hdakjt642cj5&n=s973hqt652d85ct72&e=sj5hk9843dckq8643&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp2d(multi)4dppd(penalties)ppr(see%20below)pp4hppp]399|300|

In an inter-county teams-of-eight match yesterday (cross-IMPs -> VPs), the county third teams got up to the following: South's multi showed a weak two in a major or a strong balanced 20-22 count. North asked the meaning of East's redouble before his final bid. West struggled to explain it and said among other things "9+", and tried to refer North to the only place on her convention card where redouble was mentioned (which wasn't really relevant to this sequence). North asked some more questions before giving up and bidding 4♥. 4♥ went three off, and North called the director at the end of the hand to say that if he had been told the redouble was for rescue rather than a strength-showing manoeuvre he would have passed. The TD asked EW further about their agreements, whether they had agreed to play SOS redoubles in any other situations. They said they hadn't. Both East and West were familiar with the concept of SOS redoubles, and East obviously intended his call as such. West admitted that it might have been asking her to bid a suit, but she didn't have another suit to bid. North argued that of all the things West said about the redouble "SOS", "for rescue", "bid another suit" or similar were not included. NS are a good, well-established partnership. EW are a fairly recent pairing, but play together fairly regularly. What should the ruling be?[/hv]

IMO the director should adjust the score in favour of NS (perhaps 4♦XX-3).

EW say they hadn't agreed to play SOS doubles in other (more appropriate) situations but...

• East decided to experiment with an SOS redouble here.
• West admitted the redouble might be asking her to bid a suit but failed to mention that possibility to her opponents because *she didn't have another suit to bid*

[billw55]

I will give that dissent. West did give misinformation, and north-south were damaged. I do find it credible that if west gave the accurate statement "no agreement", north would be more likely to pass. North need not be expecting 4♥ to make to bid it, if he thinks 4♦xx is making; a possibility made more likely by the incorrect explanation given.

[barmar]

If North believe his partner's bidding, how could he really expect 4♦ to make?

 

I do have a problem with West's claim that she has no other suit to bid. She has a 4-card spade suit, could partner really be expecting anything better? Do they normally only preempt with 7-5 hands?

[billw55]

If North believe his partner's bidding, how could he really expect 4♦ to make?

If south has 20 balanced, ops can have 18 with a 9 card fit. That can make 10 tricks sometimes. Or maybe 4♥ can make: for example south could hold ♠AKQx ♥KJxx ♦Jxx ♣AQ or similar.

 

One way or another, bidding 4 over 4 is often a reasonable shot at IMPs. I don't think it is fair to the NOS to call this self-inflicted.

[ggwhiz]

I would take it that the response and especially the further questioning by north would make it clear to them that whatever agreement there was was not firm.

 

I have seen examples where this further questioning basically asks west to take their best guess based on what they hold rather than agreements, not kosher.

 

Strong leaning to result stands here based on the nature of the further questioning.

[wank]

north is having a laugh. of course he knows xx isn't penalties. bidding over 4d can be right though. he decided to do so and got a bad result. now he's dialled 999 to report a robbery. if i were an officer of the constabulary, i'd be giving him a lecture about wasting police time.

[billw55]

north is having a laugh. of course he knows xx isn't penalties. bidding over 4d can be right though. he decided to do so and got a bad result. now he's dialled 999 to report a robbery. if i were an officer of the constabulary, i'd be giving him a lecture about wasting police time.

I'm not sure that it is good precedent to say that north "of course knows" information that is more or less contrary to the explanation he was given, and also not supported by the actual auction (west passing the xx). Should not players be entitled to act on the information actually disclosed to them?

[blackshoe]

What is NS's expectation in 4♦XX? If it's down three, that's +1100. If 4♦XX makes, that's -720. What does bidding 4♥ get them? +420 if it makes, -something if it's down. So I'm trying to figure out if North really means what he says when he says "I would never bid 4♥ if I'd known the redouble was SOS" or does he mean "I would never bid 4♥ if I'd known 4♦ was going down"? I dunno. I think you had to be there.

[aguahombre]

The real debate here is about 1eye's tactful approach or Wank's (not so).. It is close, but Wank wins out.

 

Result stands, whichever of the two posts was better.

[lamford]

It seems as though the correct explanation was SOS. The question is whether North should have been aware anyway that this was the meaning. North appears not to be a strong player, and probably did not know. If you decide he would have passed with the correct information, then you adjust. It does look like West was economical with the truth, and this is not to be encouraged. I would adjust to 67% of 4Dxx-3 and 33% of 4Dxx-2, the former on a black-suit lead.

[StevenG]

It seems as though the correct explanation was SOS.

This cannot be the case as they did not have an agreement that the redouble was SOS. The correct explanation was "no agreement".

[helene_t]

It seems as though the correct explanation was SOS. The question is whether North should have been aware anyway that this was the meaning. North appears not to be a strong player, and probably did not know.

Actually the explanation that it is SOS would make it more attractive to bid 4♥ since it would mean that W had sufficiently long diamonds to pass even if he thought it was SOS.

 

But from the OP it is quite clear that W didn't know what it meant and that North should have understood that even if W did not say explicitly that they had no agreement. And there is no reason to think that they had an agreement which W just forgot.

[lamford]

This cannot be the case as they did not have an agreement that the redouble was SOS. The correct explanation was "no agreement".

"West admitted that it might have been asking her to bid a suit". Sounds like they had an implicit agreement. "No agreement" does not sound sufficient. Especially for someone as brain dead as this North.

[lamford]

Actually the explanation that it is SOS would make it more attractive to bid 4♥ since it would mean that W had sufficiently long diamonds to pass even if he thought it was SOS.

Actually the explanation that it was SOS would make it more attractive to pass, since it would mean that East has sufficiently short diamonds, and sufficient length in the other suits, to redouble. Redouble was suggesting that West bid hearts, not North!

[blackshoe]

What does the fact, if it is a fact, that North is brain-dead have to do with the law?

[StevenG]

"West admitted that it might have been asking her to bid a suit". Sounds like they had an implicit agreement. "No agreement" does not sound sufficient. Especially for someone as brain dead as this North.

West had GBK that SOS might have been a possible agreement, had they had an agreement (which they didn't). That's not the same thing as having an implicit agreement.

[sanst]

It seems as though the correct explanation was SOS.

No, it was not. What W did was trying to give an interpretation of the redouble and it went everywhere. Many players, beginners and the like often do, don't say 'no agreement' but try to be helpful and come up with some guesswork.

In this case N is to blame. Why let the 4♦x stand and get shivery when it's redoubled? Didn't he trust his partner having 20...22 pts?

[aguahombre]

What does the fact, if it is a fact, that North is brain-dead have to do with the law?

It is a bonus. But, you are right; defining Bridge as a mind game does not necessarily require having a brain to participate.

[lamford]

Many players, beginners and the like often do, don't say 'no agreement' but try to be helpful and come up with some guesswork.

Indeed, and if they guess wrongly they are giving misinformation. If they say "no agreement" they are not. Here the only concrete statement that it appears West made was "9+", muddling up a one-level redouble with this one. If partner had AKx AKJx xx KQJx it might well be right to bid 4H, but not if redouble is for takeout. The 4D bidder could be xx none AKQxxxxxx xx and his partner has QJxxx xxxx none ATxx. Now both 4Dxx and 4H are both cold.

 

I cannot understand how one can rule in favour of someone who gives misinformation which causes a poor player to get a bad result.

[barmar]

No, it was not. What W did was trying to give an interpretation of the redouble and it went everywhere. Many players, beginners and the like often do, don't say 'no agreement' but try to be helpful and come up with some guesswork.

Is it really just "guesswork" if it's based on what they know of their partner's experience? Or extrapolation from similar situations in other auctions? Implicit agreements don't just come from experience within the partnership, they can also come from your knowledge of partner's experience in general, his style that you've observed when playing against them, etc.

 

If you have a good reason to believe that he might mean it as SOS, and can't expect the opponents to make the same inferences, is it unreasonable to give this explanation?

[1eyedjack]

I am curious.

 

Suppose that two partners disagree as regards the meaning of a call, but neither offers "no agreement" as an option, and the director is asked to rule on MI.

 

It seems to me that the director can come to one of three exclusive findings of fact:

 

(1) That there is no agreement (despite that neither partner is of that opinion)

 

(2) That there is an agreement, consistent with the opinion of the person who made the call

 

(3) That there is an agreement, consistent with the opinion of the partner of the person who made the call

 

Now, suppose that, for whatever reason, the director dismisses case (1) and is choosing between (2) and (3).

 

Absent any other evidence, does (2) take priority over (3)?

 

The reason that I ask the question is that some posters in this thread appear to have concluded that E/W had an agreement, that the agreement was SOS and that West mis-described it. That conclusion seems to apply greater trust in East's knowledge of their agreements than in that of West. It may be fair to discount West's opinion on the grounds that it was not confidently held. But it is also possible that West accurately described the XX as showing 9+, and that East erroneously (or ill-advisedly) redoubled intending SOS that was not their agreement. In that case North would certainly have no redress, because there will have been no MI.

[aguahombre]

Actually the explanation that it was SOS would make it more attractive to pass, since it would mean that East has sufficiently short diamonds, and sufficient length in the other suits, to redouble. Redouble was suggesting that West bid hearts, not North!

Indeed, and if they guess wrongly they are giving misinformation. If they say "no agreement" they are not. Here the only concrete statement that it appears West made was "9+", muddling up a one-level redouble with this one. If partner had AKx AKJx xx KQJx it might well be right to bid 4H, but not if redouble is for takeout. The 4D bidder could be xx none AKQxxxxxx xx and his partner has QJxxx xxxx none ATxx. Now both 4Dxx and 4H are both cold.

 

I cannot understand how one can rule in favour of someone who gives misinformation which causes a poor player to get a bad result.

Interesting. I think we have two Lamfords, one on each side.