Self-director call

[MrAce]

I am really having hard time to understand the complaints about not mentioning the "pdship agreements about the DBL" when OP did not mention any.

 

OP said "He thought his DBL was clear" And he said what he meant by this double. And that his pd took it as penalty. I did not read this as "Our agreement is value showing, but pd forgot our agreement"

I read it as the intention of OP was to show values when he doubled. Pass by his pd is actually a sign that they did not have a special agreement for this auction.

 

People check in CC both the value/card showing box AND the negative DBL box. As Iamford and I stated, this double can be simply a balancing negative for some of us. For example;

 

Axxxx

x

Txx

KTxx

 

is more than enough for me to double 2♥ on the pass out seat. Because if I pass, it is over, they play 2 ♥. I can not afford to spare this double for only value showing purposes.

I would also double with;

 

AKxxx

xxx

xx

Kxx

 

This one does not have T/O shape, but I simply have too much values to pass, so it is value showing. Pd can not know which, all he knows is my double is competitive for one or the other reason.

 

So IMO this is one of the most flexible doubles in pass out seat. Can be used with wide variety of hands, thus having a specific pdship agreement about it is unrealistic. Thus telling me that I did not mention it, is expecting to mention something that can not be there in real life. (unless you are an Italian top player and have discussed every possible auction)

 

It would also be getting FALSE results. If you tell them DBL is negative, no one would have doubled with the OP hand. If you told them them it is value showing, everyone would DBL. But in reality, everyone knows this is a pass out seat and it is a competitive double that can be negative or value showing or balancing etc... a.k.a DSIP double.

 

EDIT: DSIP =do something intteligent pd

[blackshoe]

I don't see what negative doubles have to do with doubles in the passout seat, unless the auction has gone something like 1♣-(.P)-P-(1♠)-P-(.P)-X, and even then I'm not sure that double should be negative.

[aguahombre]

There was only one green card in Timo's box, and he used it on the first round.

[MrAce]

There was only one green card in Timo's box, and he used it on the first round.

 

I know you would pass with the 7 hcp hand and stiff ♥ when they are about to play 2♥ and it being MP.

That alone tells a lot about you rather than me. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif

[aguahombre]

 

I know you would pass with the 7 hcp hand and stiff ♥ when they are about to play 2♥ and it being MP.

That alone tells a lot about you rather than me. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif

Thanks for the compliment. Holding 5-1-3-4 instead of the actual 5-3-2-3 changes my expectation of Partner's distribution from 2-2-5-4. Now it is reasonable she has 2-4-4-3.

 

However, if she did have a routine 2-4-4-3, she would have nothing to think about. So, her hesitation makes it more likely that I should keep the auction open.

 

But, that is just my opinion about the whole picture here. Will subside before the back-and-forth becomes sour.

[MrAce]

There was only one green card in Timo's box, and he used it on the first round.

 

Looks like there are many people, who had only one green card like Timo with that 7 hcp hand which they used on the first round.http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif

 

 

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-13509/

[aguahombre]

Looks like there are many people, who had only one green card like Timo with that 7 hcp hand which they used on the first round.http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif

 

 

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-13509/

Yep..about half of the ones who voted. Double is clearly a logical alternative to Pass. I choose to believe it could have been suggested over a pass by the break in tempo which is a condition in the OP.

 

Without that condition, and with that 7-point hand, I certainly would think about competing further, before rejecting the thought. Double wouldn't show that array for us. 3♦ might be o.k. if partner is 1-4-5-3; 2-4-4-3 not so much. 2-3-4-4 would have opened 1♣. So, 3♦ could work if Opener is 2-3-5-3 and they can't make 3♥. If they can, we just break even.

[mycroft]

It's the other way around (but I don't disagree with you). There are several calls that the poll suggests are LAs to double, (and double is suggested over pass by the BIT - unfortunately, "double as the cater to anything" call tends to be demonstrably suggested over unilateral calls when partner sends UI of "I can't make the final decision, but I think passing this out is wrong" almost always).

 

We don't care if the action *taken* is a LA - the case law argument is "it has to be a LA, the person took it! We assume the player isn't illogical, even if they chose it as an 'illogical alternative' " :-).

[MrAce]

Yep..about half of the ones who voted. Double is clearly a logical alternative to Pass.

 

 

So my DBL is improving? My DBL now upgraded to "logical alternative" from being a call that was made due to lack of green card! http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

 

Did you check that poll recently? Pass became a logical alternative to DBL. That DBL you thought that can only be a result of having no green card, became majority choice. Not only the numbers but who voted for what also matters. Did you check that too?

 

How did we end up debating this?

 

I said something that was not popular view here. So I made a poll which was discredited because "I did not mention the pdship agreements" Then I showed that there was no clear pdship agreement in OP and that it is unrealistic to have a clear pdship agreement on this position. In order to prove my point, I gave examples where we can DBL with hands that are too valuable to pass, or can double with a perfect T/O shape and less beans. And that just because a pdship agreed to play "card showing" doubles does not mean they can not use same double for different purpose in same auction with a different hand. Then I was told that my DBL in one of my examples (7 hcp hand) was due to not having green card left in my bidding box. So I polled that hand too.

 

Now if you look at the names of good players who voted in both polls, you will see a lot of names who voted for DBL in both, in same auction, vulnerability and scoring method. Are they crazy? In one of them they have the 11 hcp balanced hand and Kxx ♥ on the other they have 7 hcp and stiff ♥? How will pd know which? Answer is easy, he will not and he does not need to know which. That is pretty much a DBL to gain space on the pass out seat where we do not want to surrender to 2♥ and want info from the opener rather than telling him what we have. I know as well as you do, that doubling with this 7 hcp hand now and then may cost us. But any experienced player also knows that surrendering to 2♥, especially at MP, letting them play their 8 card fit (if not 9) at 2 level will cost us much more often.

 

So IMO, people who write frequently here in "Laws and Rulings" know much more than me about the laws and rules, (I do not write here a lot but read a lot to improve myself) but I am pretty confident in my mind that interpreting the words written in OP as a "pdship agreement" and setting a poll as if this was the clear agreement of this pair, leads the ruling person to wrong results.