[xcurt]

MPs, unfavorable, 3rd chair, you have

♠Q98, ♥KQT2, ♦K75, ♣K63

P-1H-P-1N*; P-P-?

1NT was intended as F1. Over to you?

Note: This is appeal case 7 from the LV NABC.

Note: edited you were in 3rd chair. The auction as given is/was correct.

[effervesce]

As a penalty X/lead directing X? Possibly, but not likely.

[benlessard]

if 1Nt isnt forcing i think X is penalty with good H.

But if 1Nt was forcing and opener decided to pass we might need to protect from a small lie or a psych.

My 1Nt overcall are heavy (16+ to 19) or (artificial) so for me this is a Mp double. 14-15 bad 16.

[andy_h]

Don't I have an easy pass or am I missing something?

[gnasher]

andy_h, on Jul 28 2008, 09:10 AM, said:

Don't I have an easy pass or am I missing something?

Did you notice that RHO has just passed a forcing bid?

I'd want to know what hand-types the forcing notrump contains, and whether this partnership has any previous experience of passing it, so as to gauge the liklihood that RHO has psyched.

[brianshark]

If you have the agreement that Dbl is a 13-15 or so with hearts well stopped (just under a 1NT overcall) then that bid is certainly in the picture. You have a perfect hand for that, and the conditions seem to make catching a potential psyche more appealing. Yes, I'm going to Dbl.

[andy_h]

gnasher, on Jul 28 2008, 07:39 PM, said:

andy_h, on Jul 28 2008, 09:10 AM, said:

Don't I have an easy pass or am I missing something?

Did you notice that RHO has just passed a forcing bid?

I'd want to know what hand-types the forcing notrump contains, and whether this partnership has any previous experience of passing it, so as to gauge the liklihood that RHO has psyched.

Yes, I did notice RHO passed a forcing bid but I also noticed partner's a passed hand who also passed the 1NT. The OP stated that 1NT was 'intended' as Forcing for 1 round with no extra information so I'm assuming that the opps are not a frequent partnership and maybe RHO is more accustomed to 'forcing, but I can pass with a min with 5332' or alike and LHO didn't know about it? Or was I supposed to ask that first?

In any event, I play X as takeout in either of mine or partner's seat, so that's certainly out for me.

[gnasher]

andy_h, on Jul 28 2008, 12:07 PM, said:

In any event, I play X as takeout in either of mine or partner's seat, so that's certainly out for me.

So do I when the 1NT response is non-forcing, but if the auction says "I've psyched", double has to cover a wider range of hands.

I agree, though, that partner's being a passed hand (which I'd missed ) greatly reduces the risk that we're being robbed.

[Edmunte1]

No, this is not the time for doubling. We are in our normal contract 1NT and we have the lead, and it's not the case about being robbed, and not even about having the majority of HCP's. Pass is normal. But as i see other posts, it seems that double it's a logical alternative

[xcurt]

At the table the 1NT was not announced.

N pulled the double on random garbage: xxxx, xxx, AQx, Qxx. This was not a success. 1NT was probably taking 5 tricks.

The director ruled damage from MI and adjusted the score to 1NT -2.

EW appealed. The committee upheld the table ruling. They claimed that knowing that 1NT should have been F1 makes doubling less desirable. NS also claimed that they both were playing Dbl = takeout. I'm not so sure looking at the S hand.

From the comments here regarding doubling for takeout I would say that S meant the Dbl as something else. Nobody remotely considered doubling for takeout with the S hand.

Also, why didn't S check the opponents card before passing. I think the committee got this ruling badly wrong letting though a fairly blatant two-way shot.

[jdonn]

I hated this committee ruling. The UI might even point the other way, since opener suggests a worse hand to pass a forcing notrump than a non-forcing notrump. I also think the double is such a terrible bid as to warrant no protection, and that the bearing of the meaning of 1NT on south's choice of bids is slight at best. This was hopeless whining that got rewarded.

[cherdano]

I was also surprised at this ruling. It seems to me the pair got damaged because they did not know whether double is takeout or penalty.

[jkdood]

I thought the facts were found that they both played it the SAME way, as take-out, which is allowed as a treatment of course. If their agreed-by-experience "treatment" is different for 1NT Foricng auctions passed, vs 1NT non-forcing auctions, I can see their point...

...IF they can convince me they had such an agreement, where they play it differently, even inferentially ageed to by style and experience.

The good comment about "looking at the Opps cc" also seems to have been avoided by the committee.

[xcurt]

jkdood, on Jul 28 2008, 07:11 PM, said:

I thought the facts were found that they both played it the SAME way, as take-out, which is allowed as a treatment of course.

This is true and of course it's an allowed treatment, but the evidence for the agreement is, well, lacking. According to the Bulletin, "the committee learned" that NS had an agreement that the double was takeout. How?

Looking at the South hand and actions, I wouldn't accept testimony to that effect without some form of verification. I think I could reasonably expect NS's notes to cover this case.

[jkdood]

I dunno, there are lotsa treatments that go undocumented - perhaps because it is considered "expert standard" at least 21st-century...

...reminds me of this auction, matchpoints: LHO 1D RHO 1S LHO 1NT p p to you, X

"Back in the Day" this auction's balancing double always showed good values that always included some noteworthy spade holding - maybe AKJx Qxx Qxx Axx - so that a spade lead was strongly suggested should pard leave 1Nx in.

I'll omit sandwich-NT issues to save space, but nowadays at equal-NV or even Fav it seems this double could well be on Qx J9xx Axx KJTx

Maybe it's suicidal and I wouldn't call it standard, but I would allow today's casual expert partner to maybe balance with something like the above. (If you think the above is an immediate double I'll take a J away) And I would respond accordingly.

The reason I'm reminded of this is because I became aware a few years back that Levin-Weinstein had an explicit agreement that this double showed EITHER ( a weakish 2nd-chance balancing takeout, or a good hand with strong spade values) and that partner was supposed to look at his own hand and figure it out.

Now, is that alertable? is that standard, or normal? I was sorta impressed by their explicit documented agreement on this, but haven't seen very many similarly handle this very common bidding situation.