Self-director call

[Jinksy]

This came up in a friendly event where no-one really cared, but I wondered if I'd be penalised for this in a real event:

 

[hv=pc=n&e=sat643hk84dq3cq86&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=ppp1d1h1s2hp(tank)pdppp]133|200[/hv]

 

MPs. 2♥x went for a hojillion points and a top for us.

 

I thought my double (competitive, showing values, though I think P took it as penalty) was clear enough to do it even after P's hesitation, but I showed by hand to S while she was waiting to put down dummy, and she grimaced in disgust :P

 

If it had been a real tournament, with an actual director call, what would the result be?

[Cyberyeti]

You have an 11 count opposite an opening bid, you can hardly be expected to pass.

[mr1303]

What does the tank suggest? That partner was considering options besides pass.

 

If you had bid 3NT I would disallow it as I suggest the hesitation suggests not being minimum, so 3NT would be more successful than 2NT or double.

 

I don't think the hesitation suggests double over 2nt though.

[The_Badger]

You have an 11 count opposite an opening bid, you can hardly be expected to pass.

 

+200 (minimum) is always a good score at MPs, except if you have a game - and that's logical :)

 

Partner doesn't support X you (over 2♥), bid NTs himself, or another suit, so it's quite unlikely 3NT is on.

 

A competitive X turned into a penalty X turns into a top. Well done!

 

(Surely bridge players are still allowed to hesitate (momentarily) at the bridge table or has 'political correctness' [:(] infected our wonderful game, too?)

[sanst]

This is clearly a pollable situation. Don't speculate what you would or wouldn't have done, but ask some players of comparable strength and give them the same information that E had at that moment.

[lamford]

This is clearly a pollable situation. Don't speculate what you would or wouldn't have done, but ask some players of comparable strength and give them the same information that E had at that moment.

I can't conceive of a call other than double, nor a more suitable hand, and I would have given South a DP for the grimace.

[gordontd]

I can't conceive of a call other than double, nor a more suitable hand, and I would have given South a DP for the grimace.

Certainly I agree Pass is not a logical alternative, but I wonder if some might bid 2NT? We would then have to consider whether the tempo break suggested double over 2NT, but in general we take the view that double is the most flexible call to cater for whatever it is that partner was thinking about.

[Cyberyeti]

I can't conceive of a call other than double, nor a more suitable hand, and I would have given South a DP for the grimace.

 

Why ? the grimace is likely to be "we're going for a number" rather than "you cheating $%^&".

 

Unless you very clearly play support doubles in this situation, particularly in unfamiliar partnerships, the most likely reason for the hesitation IMO is "what does X mean" and I'm not sure what this suggests.

[lamford]

Why ? the grimace is likely to be "we're going for a number" rather than "you cheating $%^&".

 

Unless you very clearly play support doubles in this situation, particularly in unfamiliar partnerships, the most likely reason for the hesitation IMO is "what does X mean" and I'm not sure what this suggests.

The OP stated that the grimace was in disgust, rather than in fear. And it followed on from "was clear enough to do it even after P's hesitation, but", suggesting that it was a grimace of disapprobation. Giving a DP for a grimace was not a serious suggestion ...

[ggwhiz]

A poll might come up with alternatives but they wouldn't be logical.

[Vampyr]

A poll might come up with alternatives but they wouldn't be logical.

 

I agree with Gordon that 2NT might well come up in a poll, and that double is suggested by the UI.

[lamford]

Certainly I agree Pass is not a logical alternative, but I wonder if some might bid 2NT? We would then have to consider whether the tempo break suggested double over 2NT, but in general we take the view that double is the most flexible call to cater for whatever it is that partner was thinking about.

It is usually the case that double is the most flexible call in these situations when partner passes in tempo. It caters for whatever partner had for his opening bid. If it is the same bid you would have made without the UI, for the same reason, can it then be said to be demonstrably suggested by the UI?

[barmar]

I can't conceive of a call other than double, nor a more suitable hand, and I would have given South a DP for the grimace.

Remember, this was a friendly game, not a real competition. One would hope that East wouldn't be showing his hand to dummy in a real game, and players would try harder to maintain a poker face.

[aguahombre]

I agree with Gordon that 2NT might well come up in a poll, and that double is suggested by the UI.

When the opponents have bid and raised (or shown and raised) a suit, 2nt as a natural bid is just plain silly. But, perhaps a poll might find someone silly.

[gordontd]

It is usually the case that double is the most flexible call in these situations when partner passes in tempo. It caters for whatever partner had for his opening bid. If it is the same bid you would have made without the UI, for the same reason, can it then be said to be demonstrably suggested by the UI?

I think it can be said to be demonstrably suggested "over another" if there is such an other. If there really is no alternative there obviously isn't an issue.

[lamford]

When the opponents have bid and raised (or shown and raised) a suit, 2nt as a natural bid is just plain silly. But, perhaps a poll might find someone silly.

And we need to establish what 2NT would have meant in the particular partnership, as the pollees need to be playing the same methods. I think it should be clubs and secondary diamonds, something like Kxxxx x Qx(x) AJxx(x), but this pair might not have had that agreement.

 

The OP does state that double is "competitive showing values", and if that is a correct statement of their methods, I can see no LA.

[aguahombre]

I think it (2nt) should be clubs and secondary diamonds, something like Kxxxx x Qx(x) AJxx(x), but this pair might not have had that agreement.

Having pretty much covered the 'ruling' issues, I believe this is a productive/useful spin-off.

 

Yes, I agree that 2nt should focus on clubs. When possible, we would like to use a tool which the opponents have given us to describe a hand which would normally be difficult/impossible to handle.

 

Five pieces in clubs and less strength than needed to bid 3♣ seems about right for 2nt. With 5-1-3-4, we could just bite the bullet and bid 3♦ NF.

 

With real diamond support AND G.F. strength, we could also bid 2nt, and then show the Diamonds next.

 

(Please, no jokes about spacing the 2nt bid to clarify.)

[MrAce]

Certainly I agree Pass is not a logical alternative, but I wonder if some might bid 2NT? We would then have to consider whether the tempo break suggested double over 2NT, but in general we take the view that double is the most flexible call to cater for whatever it is that partner was thinking about.

 

DBL would not even occur to me. I would bid 2 NT.

2 NT defines my hand perfectly. I have ♥ stopper, I have 11 hcp and I have a balanced hand.

I would have doubled with MUCH less than what I have + ♥ shortness.

[lamford]

DBL would not even occur to me. I would bid 2 NT.

2 NT defines my hand perfectly. I have ♥ stopper, I have 11 hcp and I have a balanced hand.

I would have doubled with MUCH less than what I have + ♥ shortness.

The OP states that double was competitive, showing values. So this East would not have doubled with much less, and certainly not with heart shortness. I agree with you that one should just play double as takeout here.

[MrAce]

The OP states that double was competitive, showing values. So this East would not have doubled with much less, and certainly not with heart shortness. I agree with you that one should just play double as takeout here.

 

 

I understand that. But double showing values still denies a hand that could bid 2 NT. After all, without agreement, 2 NT is as natural as the air we breath. (For example take the ♥K and put it somewhere else and make it a no ♥ stopper hand)

This does not mean I believe this is the best use of 2 NT. As I said, I am speculating on "no agreement" basis.

[MrAce]

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-13477/

 

I made a poll in BW. I did not mention that it is a poll for ruling. I did not mention any special agreement.

So far the poll shows:

 

2♠ = 1 vote

2 NT = 11 votes

DBL = 27 votes

PASS= 14 votes

 

How would you guys rule in the light of this poll? Is the numbers for PASS and DBL good enough to make them a logical alternative? (I have to admit that the voters may/may not be at same level with our OP.)

[lamford]

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-13477/

 

I made a poll in BW. I did not mention that it is a poll for ruling. I did not mention any special agreement.

So far the poll shows:

 

2♠ = 1 vote

2 NT = 11 votes

DBL = 27 votes

PASS= 14 votes

 

How would you guys rule in the light of this poll? Is the numbers for PASS and DBL good enough to make them a logical alternative? (I have to admit that the voters may/may not be at same level with our OP.)

I think they are probably at the same level. The pollees do need to be told the meaning of both double and 2NT in the pair's methods, however, and if they were told that the agreement was "competitive, showing values". No agreement was presented in the OP, so it is presumably undiscussed. The significant vote for Pass surprised me. It seems from one or two of the comments that they play that it is takeout, and that might influence the vote for 2NT as well. A poll without indicating the methods of the partnership is flawed.

[Vampyr]

I think they are probably at the same level. The pollees do need to be told the meaning of both double and 2NT in the pair's methods, however, and if they were told that the agreement was "competitive, showing values". No agreement was presented in the OP, so it is presumably undiscussed. The significant vote for Pass surprised me. It seems from one or two of the comments that they play that it is takeout, and that might influence the vote for 2NT as well. A poll without indicating the methods of the partnership is flawed.

 

If they do know the methods, then since the general standard for a logical alternative is non--negligible, then it is beyond obvious that these exist.

[Cyberyeti]

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-13477/

 

I made a poll in BW. I did not mention that it is a poll for ruling. I did not mention any special agreement.

So far the poll shows:

 

2♠ = 1 vote

2 NT = 11 votes

DBL = 27 votes

PASS= 14 votes

 

How would you guys rule in the light of this poll? Is the numbers for PASS and DBL good enough to make them a logical alternative? (I have to admit that the voters may/may not be at same level with our OP.)

 

Useless as a poll for this problem since you didn't mention the meaning of double, and I think it's not the meaning most people will use.

[Trinidad]

Proper polling is pretty difficult.

 

I think that NBO's put way too much emphasis on polls, without realizing that formulating a proper polling question is difficult and interpreting some of the answers is even more difficult.

 

As an example: You describe the situation, give all the boundary conditions that you deem necessary, including all the meanings of the different options and ask: "What would you bid?". I wouldn't want to feed the people who take a minute to come up with an answer and who reply "none" when you ask whether there was an LA. You know that there was an LA before they gave their first answer, but it simply vanished due to cognitive dissonance.

 

IMO, asking a few wise folks with extensive bridge knowledge and experience in dealing with these things and have them discuss the relevant questions together (let's call them an "Adjucation Circle" ;)) is much better than polling.

 

Rik