[Hanoi5]

Butler tournament, screens in use. North deals while his side is red against white opponents:

Scoring: IMP

---

Bidding was (I had to edit the bidding as East doubled 2♠):

1♦ Pa 2♥* Pa
2♠* X 3♥ Pa
4♥ Pa Pa X*
Pa Pa Pa

2♥ is a convention called three-way: slam-going support in ♦, 13+ notrump hand without 4-card Majors or at least 6 solid or semi-solid hearts in a 13+ hand.
When the tray came with 2♠ West asked South what it was, and he said it was natural. When the tray came back with 4♥, West asked South if he was sure 2♠ was natural, South said yes and West doubled.

West calls you and explains that her double was based on the fact that she held the hearts (and clubs?) and her partner should have diamonds and spades covered, how would you rule? Does the 2♠ double change your ruling?

[gwnn]

"should have spades covered"??? what does that mean? opps are almost unlimited! they could have 29 hcp!

[blackshoe]

How would I rule? In accordance with Law 84, which requires me to determine the facts - such as "what was the actual agreement?" and "given MI, was there damage?"

I'm no expert, but I think that West's argument is basically "I made a stupid double, and now I want to take it back". Sorry, but no.

Edit: The OP has changed the problem, saying now that East double 2♠. That may affect whether West's later double was "SeWoG". I still want to be sure what the agreement was, and exactly what happened at the table, but perhaps Mink's argument that West's double wasn't SeWoG should lead to a score adjustment.

[Hanoi5]

Would you consider that given West's experience (World Class), the double could have been made as a win-win situation:

1. If they go down, I doubled.
2. If they don't go down I call the Director and will have a score change.

If you think this is the situation, what would you rule?

[peachy]

The Dbl was bad judgment. Even if there was MI, the damage was caused by the World Class (really?) West doubling.

[Hanoi5]

I made a mistake with the bidding, East doubled 2♠.

[jdonn]

West needs short spades for his argument to have validity. His long spades make it LOL. If his partner has spades covered, south has no spades!

[barmar]

Swap North's ♣Ax for South's ♠Kx, and you get a hand more consistent with the auction. Now West can expect a trick in each black suit and a couple of trumps. And forcing declarer with repeated spade leads could get another trick.

[jeremy69]

Assuming there is MI I think the double is wild, gambling, ill judged and whatever other similar adjecitves you want to assign to it and I would not adjust the score.

[duschek]

Just in case you need another vote: Count me in on the "West was damaged by his silly double - no adjustment" side.

[suprgrover]

barmar, on Nov 5 2009, 11:33 AM, said:

Swap North's ♣Ax for South's ♠Kx, and you get a hand more consistent with the auction. Now West can expect a trick in each black suit and a couple of trumps. And forcing declarer with repeated spade leads could get another trick.

If you do switch the ♣Ax for the ♠Kx, then a spade lead does set it, but only if East switches to a club or (with proper play afterward) a diamond honor at trick 2. Continued spade leads would let declarer make all 6 trumps, a high diamond, a high spade and two club tricks.

That's an awfully close double in my book (it assumes that there is going to be a club trick for the defense, for one).

[jdonn]

Requiring opponents to have exactly what you need (including no spade ace and no club singleton) for down one does not make double defensible. In fact if they had the exactly hands you suggest but north with 4261 and spade ace instead of KQ, then on the spade lead you suggest they will easily make 5! Even with the KQ they would still be making 4.

[bluejak]

I do not think there is any question that West's double is a lot of things, none of them sensible. But is there any case for adjusting for N/S only?

[aguahombre]

no, unless the misinformation caused misdefense. If that were the case, then the adjustment would be for both sides.

Unless the punishment would just be for spite.

[mink]

I assume that South's explanation of the 2♠ was really misinformation, and the agreement was it meant something artificial not showing anything about ♠ (maybe a relay), and East got the correct information. Maybe the OP can alert me if I am wrong.

Was West's double really a bad call? Maybe look at it from a different point of view: N/S bid a game, and not a slam. I do not see any evidence in the bidding that they even tried for a slam. Not bidding a slam means that they expect E/W to make 2 or 3 tricks. However, they did bid under the assumption that the ♥ will behave, and could not foresee a 5-0 break. West's ♥ suit are 2 extra tricks. The 5-0 break does not make it less likely that they get the 2 or 3 tricks that they should get anyway. Therefore, without looking at other evidence, West can expect the 4♥ contract to go down 1 or 2.

A little uncertainty is, however, the question if the ♣K will make a trick or not. Maybe, if there is a finesse for this K, and Partner has only one defensive trick, 4♥ can still be made. Therefore, West is interested to know which opp has the clubs, because the ♣A is more likely to be where most of the clubs are. If North has 4 ♠ cards, his likely distribution is 4=2=4=3 or 4=2=5=2, and it is quite likely that ♣K makes a trick. But if 2♠ is a relay and West knows nothing about the black suits, a defensive trick with the ♣K is significantly less likely.

Another point is East's double over 2♠. If West knew that 2♠ was artificial, he would also know that his partner has spade honors as the double was probably lead-directing. For a double West would like East's honors rather be in some other suit, maybe ♦, where the likelihood that they succeed in making tricks is higher.

Conclusion: West has good reasons to base her decision on whether to double or not on the information that 2♠ was natural, and the double was neither wild nor gambling, not even close. It is irrelevant how West reasoned for her double, because a bad reasoning does not turn a sensible call to wild and gambling. Besides, I suspect that the OP did not do a great job when presenting her reasoning.

The fact that she asked a second time if the 2♠ bid was really natural is strong evidence that she was going to base her decision on this information, whatever her true reasons were.

This means, the offending side got a better score by the misinformation, and this is all what Law 21B3 requires. And as I pointed out above, the double was not wild or gambling, so this is not a case of Law 12C1b.

Addressing bluejack's question if, assuming the double was wild or gambling, at least N/S should get the score without the double: I would say yes, because I would still believe that the misinformation made a difference for West when deciding about the double.

Karl

[mrdct]

There isn't much point posing these sort of ruling question without complete information - the key piece of the puzzle being what was the actual NS agreement in relation to the 2♠ bid? I would assume that if they are playing this 3-way 2♥ bid they would have some system notes to clarify the matter.

Did East ask North what 2♠ was? If so, how was it described on the other side of the screen?

What alternative actions is West suggesting she might have taken had 2♠ been described as a relay? I think it's unlikely that she'd be competing to 4♠ when it looks like 4♥ is going to struggle. Also, if she thinks she has penalty double with LHO holding an opening hand with ♦ & ♠ and RHO holding ♥AKQxxx and 13+ hcp, then how does changing 2♠ to a "relay" reduce the atrractiveness of double?

On the surface, I think West's poor result is self-inflicted (possibly under the mistaken belief that she had a safety net of being able to seek an adjusted score if 4♥x makes) but I'm not going to rule until I establish the facts.