[Hanoi5]

I need to print this as proof and I want to do it right this time. It's a butler tournament, screens are in use. North deals while his side is red against white opponents:

Scoring: IMP

---

Bidding was:

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 called the Director explained that she knew 2♠ is normally a relay but that she was explained it was natural in this case and the director told her to act upon what she had been alerted (I didn't know this till today either), and then she doubled. Upon seeing dummy the Director was called again (I don't know what the lead was!).

If North's 2♠ is natural, East's double shows some sort of take out hand with diamonds and clubs (maybe some spades). When 2♠ is a relay (which was the case here) the double asks for the lead. I think I'm leaning towards taking away the double, not only because of mink's post, but also because the Director was called before the double and everything. How would you rule knowing all this?

[peachy]

IMO, misinformation did not lead to double. The double was "independently bad" with or without misinformation. In fact, with misinformation [2s = natural] the double is even worse judgment than with correct information.

I notice that you left out from your second post that West is World Class player. I doubted that fact from the start.

[blackshoe]

Proof of what?

Facts are not subject to doubt. Assertions are another story.

[hotShot]

Lets look at it step by step.

1) Was there misinformation?
2) Was there damage?
3) Is the damage caused by the misinformation?

1) What did North tell East and what does the CC of NS say?
We don't know, but lets asume MI.

2) Sure, 4♥X= is worse than 4♥=.

3) Here is the problem:
How was West damaged by the MI?

Please realize that it's West's obligation to explain to the TD how he/she was damaged. If West can't explain in what way (s)he was influenced, it is unlikely that the damage was caused by the MI.

If West had claimed:

Quote

With the correct explanation, I would have known that partners dbl of 2♠ was lead directing. That means that partner is more likely to have his values in ♠ than in ♣. Since South probably has most of the HCP in ♥ and the only shape information available from North is 3+♦, North could have several ♣ cards and North holding ♣A is likely because of shape and HCP considerations.

If 2♠ is natural, than North has less spaces left for ♣ cards and is more likely to hold the A♠ than the A♣. Partners dbl would be t/o now with ♦ and ♣ length (some ♠ possible). So partner could have the A♣ or the ♣Q making sure that we have 1-2 ♣ tricks. And there is a chance that he holds a trick in ♦ or even ♠.

Such an immediate claim, would convince a TD that the MI caused the damage.


Wests dbl may be (very) bad, but it's far from irrational or wild enough so that West could lose the right to an adjusted score. West has 2 sure trump tricks and a chance to get a ♣ trick. East promised some values with the dbl of 2♠, it's not irrational to expect 1-2 defense tricks from East.

[Trinidad]

We need to check a few facts:

1) What did North explain to East? (I assume North explained 2♠ as a relay.)

2) What is the actual agreement? (For now, I am going to assume that the agreement was relay, but it hardly matters. See later under B.)

3) What did Easts double promise? (Hanoi claims it was takeout, if 2♠ was natural, but lead directing if it was artificial. This seems reasonable enough. But if I could see that in writing, that would be even better. I will assume that Hanoi is correct.)

4) How was West misinformed?
West thought that East had a takeout double. Therefore East promised hearts and clubs as well as a decent hand. In that case, it seems like a fairly routine double from West. The biggest problem that I would have is that the opponents might make 5♦, but since East's double promised values, it is reasonable to think that 5♦ goes down on power.

If East would have thought that 2♠ was a relay, he would have an automatic pass and lead a spade. It would have given EW a better result. There is damage, and making some other assumptions (no gross errors on defense, bla, bla and bla) I will adjust.

B ) Assume the agreement was that 2♠ was natural and that North misbid. Now West has the right information about the NS bidding, but East was misinformed. With the correct information East would never double 2♠ (since it would have shown hearts and clubs and values). If East would not double, the auction would continue the same (but without the double) and in the end, West would not have any reason to double.

Therefore, the MI (whether it was given to West or to East) has damaged EW. I will adjust.

Rik

[hotShot]

Rik,

NS bid and raised ♥ showing a fit and West has 5♥ so West knows East has a ♥ void. So Easts t/o cannot show ♥ and ♦, has to show the minors.

[Trinidad]

hotShot, on Nov 7 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

Rik,

NS bid and raised ♥ showing a fit and West has 5♥ so West knows East has a  ♥ void. So Easts  t/o cannot show ♥ and ♦, has to show the minors.

HotShot,

At the point where East doubled 2♠, NS had neither shown hearts nor raised hearts. NS had shown two suits: ♦ and ♠. Thus, when the double of 2♠ is takeout, it shows hearts and clubs. It doesn't make sense to say that a takeout double shows the minor suits when diamonds and spades have been shown and clubs and hearts have not been shown (yet). A NS raising and bidding hearts, later in the auction cannot "undo" the meaning of East's double.

If South' explanations were correct and East had the same information, then West knows that EW have a 9 card heart fit.

Of course, that is strange, since it seems that NS have 8 hearts too, leaving East with a heart void. Therefore, West smells a rat somewhere. He asks about the auction and even calls the TD. The TD tells West to base his actions on the explanations given by South. Short interpretation: Believe the explanation!

Now it's time for the crucial question: What is West supposed to believe?

I) Partner's bidding
II) The opponents' bidding

If I were East and West would choose to believe the opponents, rather than me, West would be in trouble.

So, West did what any good bridge player would do: He believes his partner rather than the opponents and he doubles. There is no "West should have known that something was up". After all, West knew that something was up. He asked. Then he called the TD and asked again. The TD told him to believe the explanations. West did just that and he believed his partner (who incidently bid perfectly fine with the explanation that he had).

Could I have West's name? I would like to play with partners who trust me. Unfortunately, since East bids perfectly fine, I guess that West doesn't want to change partners. Too bad.

Rik

[Trinidad]

hotShot, on Nov 7 2009, 12:01 PM, said:

Please realize that it's West's obligation to explain to the TD how he/she was damaged. If West can't explain in what way (s)he was influenced, it is unlikely that the damage was caused by the MI.

I don't get this.

- West has asked for an explanation of a not alerted 2♠ bid. (And heard it was natural.)
- West clearly realizes something is wrong. She calls the TD and asks again for the meaning of 2♠. Same thing and the TD instructs West to believe the explanation.
- As instructed, West believes the explanation. As a result, partner must have hearts. And West doubles 4♥.

When dummy comes down, it seems to be exactly what West had expected all along and why she called the TD to begin with. West calls the TD again (before she knew what the result of the deal was going to be).

In the following discussion, West says that with the given information, East has shown hearts, but with the information that 2♠ was a relay, East would have shown a desire for a spade lead.

And knowing all that, you are saying that you want to hear from West how she thinks she has been damaged by the MI?

Don't you think that she has already spelled it out?

Rik

[hotShot]

Trinidad, on Nov 7 2009, 08:02 PM, said:

hotShot, on Nov 7 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

Rik,

NS bid and raised ♥ showing a fit and West has 5♥ so West knows East has a  ♥ void. So Easts  t/o cannot show ♥ and ♦, has to show the minors.

HotShot,

At the point where East doubled 2♠, NS had neither shown hearts nor raised hearts. NS had shown two suits: ♦ and ♠. Thus, when the double of 2♠ is takeout, it shows hearts and clubs. It doesn't make sense to say that a takeout double shows the minor suits when diamonds and spades have been shown and clubs and hearts have not been shown (yet). A NS raising and bidding hearts, later in the auction cannot "undo" the meaning of East's double.

The bidding was:
1♦ Pa 2♥* Pa
2♠* X
What reason kept East from bidding over 1♦ if he had ♥ and ♣, and why is he strong enough to enter the auction over 2♠?
If you know a reason other than holding long ♦ I'll be happy to change my view.
So I know that partner never intended to show ♥ and ♣, so there is no "undo" about Easts dbl.

[Trinidad]

hotShot, on Nov 7 2009, 11:48 PM, said:

What reason kept East from bidding over 1♦ if he had ♥ and ♣, and why is he strong enough to enter the auction over 2♠?

Lack of a spade suit.

East could have had something like:

♠x
♥KQxx
♦Axx
♣Axxxx

(Opposite that hand, the actual West hand should probably save in 5♥ over 4♠.)

hotShot, on Nov 7 2009, 11:48 PM, said:

If you know a reason other than holding long ♦ I'll be happy to change my view.
So I know that partner never intended to show ♥ and ♣, so there is no "undo" about Easts dbl.

So, at the point where East doubled, it was perfectly possible for him to have hearts and clubs and values. And since takeout doubles usually show the suits that opponents haven't shown yet (♥+♣, in this case) that is what the double shows to West, and not something exotic like both minors (after North has shown diamonds).

Rik