[awm]

1) I think the director was too quick to rule. He needs to get more evidence about how this pair plays doubles in similar situations. Perhaps the easiest one is if 1NT was natural and the auction proceeded in the same way.

2) I cannot understand why overcall structure is not a pre-alert. It seems very much to fall under the set of "methods which may be fundamentally unfamiliar to opponents." Having heard at least one pair explain about the many good boards they get from the auction 1X-1NT!-Redouble only confirms this impression. With that said, I would think that any "extra time" allocated for opponents would be at first turn after the alerted 1NT call, rather than in a balancing situation like this one.

3) Sure it's self-serving, but agree that does not mean "untrue." Then again, it seems like the director just took their explanation at face value without any further questions, which is wrong. Why did west not try to find a major fit opposite a "takeout" or "do something" double? Was this a forcing auction (and if not, why didn't east pass)? What would they play here if 1NT had been natural?

[marcD]

hanp, on Jun 3 2009, 01:45 AM, said:

Whether we play that this double is penalty or not is not relevant.

If this is a normal hand for the double, why did they think for so long? Obviously they were afraid that partner would pass with the wrong hand. And the long pause clearly suggests this.

Also, the question is not whether 2D is a logical alternative, the question is whether pass is a logical alternative!

I am with Gerben on this one . Disagree with the message below. You cannot expect this pair to have formally agreed to a defense in this situation . I think part of the thinking from East could be to figure out which more common situation is this hand like : does the 1st round double induce a force (like a redouble ) answer no, is this to be treated like a delayed 2♣ overcall (DBL takeout), would take out by partner be takeout , so his pass could be for penalties and i am suppose to double etc (I guess not).

It would help to know whether this was a short match or not and whether pre-alert was used . barring that I would give EW the benefit of the doubt. The only thing W can infer from his partner hesitation is that E has no natural bid

By the way I would hesitate with E hand too : My choice would be between pass and dbl (points/DSIP). (2♣ by my partner on the 1st round would have been takeout, Dbl shows points, dbl second round by west would have been penalty). It is a matter of style but do not think penalty dbl by East is an option

[Phil]

awm, on Jun 3 2009, 01:02 PM, said:

1) I think the director was too quick to rule. He needs to get more evidence about how this pair plays doubles in similar situations. Perhaps the easiest one is if 1NT was natural and the auction proceeded in the same way.

2) I cannot understand why overcall structure is not a pre-alert. It seems very much to fall under the set of "methods which may be fundamentally unfamiliar to opponents." Having heard at least one pair explain about the many good boards they get from the auction 1X-1NT!-Redouble only confirms this impression. With that said, I would think that any "extra time" allocated for opponents would be at first turn after the alerted 1NT call, rather than in a balancing situation like this one.

3) Sure it's self-serving, but agree that does not mean "untrue." Then again, it seems like the director just took their explanation at face value without any further questions, which is wrong. Why did west not try to find a major fit opposite a "takeout" or "do something" double? Was this a forcing auction (and if not, why didn't east pass)? What would they play here if 1NT had been natural?

Adam:

Harvey and I do pre-alert OS. We aren't required to but we do in all team matches. We try to in pair games to, but its tougher since you don't have the time you do in teams.

When the director came over I did ask the opponents what a parallel auction would mean:

1♦ - double - rdbl - pass
pass - 1/2x - pass - pass
dbl

and frankly I didn't get a straight answer. The director (who was running a 12 table team game concurrently with a NLM 10 table tg) just seemed to want to get a ruling that the players were content with and move on.

I don't think a natural 1N really applies here, and this is one of the misconceptions people have when defending OS.

[awm]

There is a general situation something like the following:

(1) We have made a double (or redouble) indicating that our side has a majority of the values.
(2) The opponents remove the doubled contract to a suit.
(3) The person on our side who is "in front of" the opponent with the suit doubles.

There are many such situations in standard bridge, for example:

1♦-X-XX-P
P-2♣-P-P-X

1♦-1NT-X-P
P-2♣-P-P-X

1♦-2♦-X-P
P-2♥-P-P-X
(assuming the first double is desire to penalize)

1NT-X(penalty)-P-P
2m-P-P-X

It seems normal to assume that double has the same meaning in all of the above situations. My impression is that the standard agreement is for all of these to be penalty, but it is certainly possible to play that they are takeout. Nonetheless, without clear agreements to the contrary I would tend to assume that all these doubles have the same meaning, since the situation is more or less the same. So when a situation like the one at the table occurs (which the opponents are highly unlikely to have discussed in particular) I would tend to ask about their agreements in the similar situations above. If they play all those doubles as penalty, then I would tend to believe that their claim that double is takeout (or DSIP) in this situation is fatuous. If they agree that all the above doubles are for takeout, then I would tend to believe them that this double is takeout also (or that takeout is a logical enough interpretation given their general agreements that leaving the double in with two small clubs is not a LA).

[MFA]

Yes, I'm inclined to agree with the director's ruling. Some detective work from his side is in order though. Playing non-penalty doubles in this situation sounds fairly normal to me (although surely not the majority agreement), so I would need some real evidence to brush aside the players' explanations as self serving.

Sure, more leeway after unusual methods. Not just to be nice, but in general huddles are just not quite as telling when the confusion factors in. One often just has to realize what's going on, before making a bid, however obvious this bid may be/seem when one reaches the evaluation fase of the problem. So the marginal cases should pass.

I'm impressed that this Brown Sticker Convention is allowed in the first place in some Monday night game. But ACBL rules never stop to amaze me.

I'm always supporting the view that one can liberaly call the director and this without implying anything bad. This surely also applies her. As a personal preference, though, I would go a little easy on calling the TD after my opponents' huddles in these sequences, if I were having such a spicy entry on my Monday night menu.

[Phil]

MFA, on Jun 3 2009, 05:18 PM, said:

I'm impressed that this Brown Sticker Convention is allowed in the first place in some Monday night game. But ACBL rules never stop to amaze me.

Is this really BSC in Europe?

[awm]

From the WBF site under "Brown Sticker Conventions and Treatments":

An overcall of a natural opening bid of one of a suit that does not promise at least four cards in a known suit.

EXCEPTION: A natural overcall in no trumps.
EXCEPTION: any cue bid suit that shows a strong hand.
EXCEPTION: a jump cue bid in opponent's known suit that asks partner to bid 3NT with a stopper in that suit.

Looks like the 1NT for takeout is brown sticker.

[NickRW]

It may be brown sticker under WBF rules, but using 1NT as a weak take out is permitted under EBU rules as low as level 2 (holiday bridge) - not that I can recall seeing it played that way.

Nick

[blackshoe]

"Brown Sticker" is a term used by the WBF in regulations applying to WBF tournaments. Tournaments in Europe do not necessarily fall under the purview of either the WBF or the WBF's regulations. So "BSC in Europe?" probably cannot be answered by reference to WBF regulations. One must refer to the regulations of the Regulating Authority concerned, which in Europe is probably either the EBL or the NBO of the country in which the tournament takes place.

[Gerben42]

Quote

  "Brown Sticker" is a term used by the WBF in regulations applying to WBF tournaments. Tournaments in Europe do not necessarily fall under the purview of either the WBF or the WBF's regulations. So "BSC in Europe?" probably cannot be answered by reference to WBF regulations. One must refer to the regulations of the Regulating Authority concerned, which in Europe is probably either the EBL or the NBO of the country in which the tournament takes place.

Although this is true, many countries take the in my opinion correct view to not invent the wheel again and simply follow the WBF / EBL regulations. That way, there is no discussion about what is allowed or not.

And yes, in international play or for example playing in the Netherlands or Germany, this is considered "brown sticker". In the German national competition (Bundesliga), CC are published beforehand. If I was going to meet a pair playing this, I would discuss it beforehand. Coming up with something at the table is not going to work here, even if you pre-alert it.

[blackshoe]

Gerben42, on Jun 4 2009, 03:31 AM, said:

Although this is true, many countries take the in my opinion correct view to not invent the wheel again and simply follow the WBF / EBL regulations.

Fair enough, although it seems you meant "the EBL and many (European?) countries...' Not that it really matters. I do wonder which countries do this, and not just in Europe, but that's just curiosity.

Quote

That way, there is no discussion about what is allowed or not.

Heh. Are you sure the WBF Brown Sticker regulations are that clear?