[helene_t]

cherdano, on Aug 5 2007, 10:16 PM, said:

Of course double is suggested by partner's tank, he was obviously thinking about doubling, which makes your double a lot more attractive. (In real life partner was me, and I had an ace and a king besides my KQJxxx heart suit.)

Of course you had, opps' bidding told Justin that you did.

[cherdano]

helene_t, on Aug 5 2007, 03:31 PM, said:

cherdano, on Aug 5 2007, 10:16 PM, said:

Of course double is suggested by partner's tank, he was obviously thinking about doubling, which makes your double a lot more attractive. (In real life partner was me, and I had an ace and a king besides my KQJxxx heart suit.)

Of course you had, opps' bidding told Justin that you did.

It is still UI that I thought about doubling.

[Halo]

Jlall, on Aug 5 2007, 05:14 PM, said:

Halo, on Aug 5 2007, 04:18 PM, said:

Can't believe it.

Your partner who ought to double doesn't.

You think you can conjure a reason (for a Director) to double on the rubbish you hold.  Do you have personal Directors as well as a personal trainer?

who was this addressed to?

Anyone who thinks they can rationalise a double after partner has tanked about doubling in this auction.

[cherdano]

Halo, on Aug 5 2007, 03:18 PM, said:

Can't believe it.

Your partner who ought to double doesn't.

You think you can conjure a reason (for a Director) to double on the rubbish you hold.

This must be a joke. Double by me would have been possible but definitely speculative. I had Axx KQJxxx Kxx x - for all I know opponents might be running 6 club tricks plus 3 diamond tricks (my king in the finesse) plus the ace of hearts for an overtrick. (Give LHO Kx Tx AJT AQTxxx and RHO Txxxx Axx Qx Kxx.) And some days partner might not have a heart to lead.

Both partners know the combined strength of both sides from the invitational auction, but Justin's hand knew the clubs were not running, so the double is more logical from his side.

(Of course, a slow pass was the worst I could do.)

[dogsbreath]

hi

pass is certainly a 'LA' .. declarer can easily have a double heart guard (K10xx or A10xx) and your spade holding is vulnerable. Additionally your diamond guard and good club holding will be embarrassed by having to ditch on the 2nd round of Hearts.
I agree that this may well be difficult for opps to play .. but maybe also 10 tricks makeable .,. why crucify p for indicating a good lead

Rgds Dog

[cherdano]

dogsbreath, on Aug 5 2007, 05:09 PM, said:

hi

pass is certainly a 'LA' .. declarer can easily have a double heart guard (K10xx or A10xx) and your spade holding is vulnerable. Additionally your diamond guard and good club holding will be embarrassed by having to ditch on the 2nd round of Hearts.
I agree that this may well be difficult for opps to play .. but maybe also 10 tricks makeable .,. why crucify p for indicating a good lead

Rgds Dog

Declarer won't have a heart stopper or else he would pass 2N (or raise to 3N). Dummy could have a double heart stopper, of course.

[TimG]

Jlall, on Aug 5 2007, 05:22 PM, said:

How about the fact that before I revealed my results 7 out of 10 respondents chose to double, 70 %?

For most posts, I think there is polling bias. Usually there is at least a subtle suggestion in the way the question is asked, or in the very fact that the question has been asked. And, most people here are quite aggressive.

Also, isn't the basis for a call being a logical alternative something like "that which a significant number of peers would seriously consider" even if they would eventually come to a different choice? So, even if 100% of those polled would double, if half of them seriously considered passing, it's still a logical alternative, right?

(I don't mean this in any way to question your actions, obviously you went the extra mile in trying to do the right thing.)

[jdonn]

btw I think you counted me against the poll but I never said I didn't double, I just said I don't expect a bonanza from a double like some people (brilliant as always). I never voted so make it 7/9.

[helene_t]

Jlall, on Aug 6 2007, 02:14 AM, said:

Some have told me you're supposed to ask how they would rate all plausible options. All agree you're not supposed to ask and tell them partner hesitated.

I do not know the laws well enough to tell you at what point something becomes an LA, I'm sure you know better than me.

That' s an interesting problem. First, there is the somewhat philosophical problem of what it's supposed to mean that something is an LA if nobody chooses it. You can quantify the proportion of players who would pass but it's not clear how the " sensibleness" of a pass, from a single players point of view, should be measured. Therefore, the laws don't talk about players who consider something an LA. If more than x% of players would pass it's an LA. Period. Whether those who did not pass considered pass reasonable, is irrelevant. x can be 70% or 100% or somewhere in between depending on the kind of problem and probably also on jurisdiction.

Second, there's the statistical problem of how the proportion of passes is best estimated from a small sample. If everybody knows exactly what every else would do, you can just ask a single player what the proportion is. As the other extreme, if everybody knows what he would do himself but nobody has a clue about the rest, you must ask players what their own choice would be and there's no cheap alternative to a large sample size. To estimate a proportion of, say, approximately 20% with a reasonable accuracy (95% confidence of between 12% and 28%) you would need to interview 100 peers).

There could be an intermediate solution, assuming that players have some, yet imperfect, knowledge about their peers' choice. Then you should ask players about their own choices as well as that of their peers and somehow compute a weighted average of the two. In theory, it could be done even better by also asking each player how certain he is about his estimate. This is not doable in practice, of course, for a number of reasons, especially the fact that most people don't understand the concept of probability so they are unable to answer the questions one would need to ask.

[TimG]

helene_t, on Aug 6 2007, 02:21 AM, said:

That' s an interesting problem. First, there is the somewhat philosophical problem of what it's supposed to mean that something is an LA if nobody chooses it. You can quantify the proportion of players who would pass but it's not clear how the " sensibleness" of a pass, from a single players point of view, should be measured. Therefore, the laws don't talk about players who consider something an LA. If more than x% of players would pass it's an LA. Period. Whether those who did not pass considered pass reasonable, is irrelevant. x can be 70% or 100% or somewhere in between depending on the kind of problem and probably also on jurisdiction.

I've just read the section of the Laws regarding Unauthorized Information (Law 16). You're right, the Laws do not talk about players "who would consider something" a logical alternative. But, neither do the Laws talk about players who would select an alternative action. The Laws don't seem to define "Logical Alternative".

That is consistent with my recollection that Sponsoring Organizations have taken it upon themselves to provide guidelines when it comes to determining whether a call is a Logical Alternative. And, I'm quite sure that the guidelines in the ACBL have addressed what calls would be "seriously considered" even if those calls would not actually be chosen.

[TimG]

I've just found this in Duplicate Decisions (not always a reliable reference on Laws):

"a logical alternative is a call that would be seriously considered by at least a substantial minority of equivalent players, acting on the basis of all the information legitimately available"

Evidence that Sponsoring Organizations do determine, to some extent, the definition of a Logical Alternative.

[ArtK78]

This post has turned into an ethics discussion.

I would like to go back to the original question posed.

Do you double? It would not occur to me to double 3NT. Why should I think that I am beating 3NT, when all that my partner did was request a heart lead? His double, which could be aggressive, does not show a good hand - just a desire for a heart lead and a reasonable assurance that he will beat 2H if one of the opponents decides to send it back.

If partner needs a monster every time he makes a lead directing double, he won't be making too many of them (which is not necessarily a bad thing with some of my partners).

I do not see why so many posters think that the auction indicates that the opponents are looking to "improve the contract." 2NT was invitational. 3C may have been a suggestion to play 3C, or it may have been forcing. No one said anything. Why would they play in 3C when they must have a 7 card spade fit? In any event, they are in 3NT and I do not see why they will not make.

[awm]

I wouldn't double this, but my interpretation of the auction seems to be somewhat different from others'.

I would think that 3♣ is an accept of the invite, showing club length/values and concern about the possibility of a heart lead. The 3NT bid says okay, I have hearts stopped. It seems weird to me to bid 3♣ over 2NT with a reject of the invite, since there is no guarantee that 3♣ is particularly playable (partner could have none).

I would be concerned here that:

(1) Spades might run, providing the opponents a lot of tricks. This is more likely to happen if I double, since the spade position is likely something resembling Ax opposite KQTxx and declarer is more likely to hook me for the jack if I double.

(2) I have shoddy values. If I knew that the opponents just bumped a rejected invite into game then I can see doubling, but not clear this has to be the case. Give partner something like ♥AQJxxx and a side king and the auction seems consistent, yet there is no reason to think we are beating this (partner has no entries).

(3) It's not clear to me that opponents are planning to run the clubs. Declarer's 3♣ bid could just be control showing. And there is no reason to think they can't run the spades. It's easy to imagine them taking five spades, a heart, and three minor suit tricks.

(4) In any case, I'd be surprised if this went down a lot. If doubled in a failing contract, opponents will select a line that safeguards down one or two rather than go all out for a marginal chance to make.

[TimG]

ArtK78, on Aug 6 2007, 01:40 PM, said:

In any event, they are in 3NT and I do not see why they will not make.

That was my first thought, and I can construct hands where 3NT will make, but it takes some effort. Partner doesn't have to have KQJxxx in hearts and a quick entry to make his lead directing double, but given our hand and responder's invitational values, he does have to have about 10 HCP, and every point that isn't in hearts makes it even harder to construct layouts where 3NT is making.

I like to think I would have found a double, but I would have seriously considered passing if that wasn't my actual action.

[mikeh]

awm, on Aug 6 2007, 02:05 PM, said:

I wouldn't double this, but my interpretation of the auction seems to be somewhat different from others'.

I would think that 3♣ is an accept of the invite, showing club length/values and concern about the possibility of a heart lead. The 3NT bid says okay, I have hearts stopped. It seems weird to me to bid 3♣ over 2NT with a reject of the invite, since there is no guarantee that 3♣ is particularly playable (partner could have none).

I would be concerned here that:

(1) Spades might run, providing the opponents a lot of tricks. This is more likely to happen if I double, since the spade position is likely something resembling Ax opposite KQTxx and declarer is more likely to hook me for the jack if I double.

(2) I have shoddy values. If I knew that the opponents just bumped a rejected invite into game then I can see doubling, but not clear this has to be the case. Give partner something like ♥AQJxxx and a side king and the auction seems consistent, yet there is no reason to think we are beating this (partner has no entries).

(3) It's not clear to me that opponents are planning to run the clubs. Declarer's 3♣ bid could just be control showing. And there is no reason to think they can't run the spades. It's easy to imagine them taking five spades, a heart, and three minor suit tricks.

(4) In any case, I'd be surprised if this went down a lot. If doubled in a failing contract, opponents will select a line that safeguards down one or two rather than go all out for a marginal chance to make.

I see no reason why 3♣ is an acceptance of the invite. Opener has 2=3 or 2=2 in the majors (likely 2=3), with no ♥ stopper and 5+ clubs... that's what 3♣ says to me.

I agree that 3N says responder has a ♥ stopper.

They will make 3N ONLY if responder has HH10xx in ♠s and partner lacks a quick entry AND a declarer, doubled in 3N, decides to take a second round hook into the long ♥s. Now, if partner holds, say, KQJ10xx in ♥s, and I have doubled 3N, maybe declarer will play me for the side entries... not to mention the horror of scoring only 2 ♠ tricks from HH10xx opposite Ax

Even if the ♥ suit is Axx in dummy and Jxx in opener's hand, a good partner will win the Q on round one and return the K... for two reasons: the first is to kill dummy and the second is to cater to 9x in your hand and Jx in opener's. Only if dummy is A10x opposite Jxx is there a problem.


BTW, it is not that 3♣ is known by declarer to be playable... it is that 2N is known by declarer NOT to be playable. Which in turn strongly suggests he lacks even Jxx in ♥s.

And if we are placing cards, by giving dummy HHxxx in ♠s, where the top x may be the 10.... we are missing 6 x's, assuming that opener has the A (wouldn't it be sweet if partner did, altho xx xxx in the majors doesn't look much like 1N, what is he to open with xx xxx AKQ AKxxx?) Since responder holds 3 x's, the odds are 50-50 that either opener or partner holds the 10. And, of course, A10xxx Axx Jxx xx isn't going to play well opposite KQ or Qx or Kx either.

So all told, I see very little risk of them making, and, yes, while I have trouble coming up with a hand where we get 800 (unless partner holds 7 hearts), 500 is easy and 500 is not to be sniffed at when they hold 24-25 hcp.

Consider KQxxx A10x xxx xx opposite Ax xxx KQx AKxxx. I have given both players a maximum for the auction (many would say I gave responder too much, but I think he should be holding back after the double of 2♥), and after a ♥ lead, they are 500.


While I think that the actual table decision to pass was active ethics in action, I'm not at all sure how I'd rule if sitting on a committee after a double. That call looks pretty clear to me

[hrothgar]

TimG, on Aug 6 2007, 08:14 PM, said:

I've just found this in Duplicate Decisions (not always a reliable reference on Laws):

"a logical alternative is a call that would be seriously considered by at least a substantial minority of equivalent players, acting on the basis of all the information legitimately available"

Evidence that Sponsoring Organizations do determine, to some extent, the definition of a Logical Alternative.

Here's the thing:

Duplicate Decisions is not legally binding. Some of the advice given in DD is flat out wrong. The ACBL has admitted that parts of DD are not to be followed. What this has to say about the validity of any of the rest of DD is anyone's guess.