[Fluffy]

bluejak, on Apr 9 2010, 02:43 AM, said:

One other question: did everyone who think double is obvious notice it was a weak no-trump?

I am amazed with all those doubles, I know little about weak NT, but if I had same shape with 5 HCP facing a strong NT I wouldn't ever think of anything but pass.

[jvage]

I also use double here as the majority (takeoutish), and while it is a reasonable bid pass clearly seems like a LA.

To Fluffy; I would assume you have 6 and not 5 (3hp less) for the equivalent position facing a 15-17NT?

John

[gwnn]

This hand is not really the equivalent situation with some random 5-1-4-3 6 count with a small singleton heart opposite a strong NT

-we have exceptional concentration of values
-we have 3 controls which is above average for the HCP count

There is no guarantee that if we teleport the 3HCP that the K of S represents now, it will not transform into a bunch of quacks. The K of spades is often a defensive trick if partner has 2 spades, the bunch of quacks will usually be useless both in offence and defence.

It would be difficult for me to make an equivalent hand to be honest, I was thinking of

Kxxxx
x
xxxx
Kxx

or

Qxxxx
x
xxxx
Axx

but with neither of them is double quite so imperative as this hand opposite a weak NT.

From a more simple-minded point of view, the most HCP we expect to be held by our RHO who is over partner, so the more strength we have and the less partner has, the better for our chances both in defence and offence. If you don't agree with this stronger wording, I can rephrase: the most strength outside hearts rates to be in RHO's hand, because he has more slots available. Then our side's combined defensive strength outside hearts is better placed in our hand as opposed to partner's.

[dburn]

greenender, on Apr 8 2010, 08:00 AM, said:

Although not as convinced as bluejak of the Zargishness of the double, I agree with his ruling.

When we bid 2♥, we did not intend to drive to game.  Still less did our actions to date demonstrate a commitment to drive to game.  So we do not "have to" double to protect our previously expected score.

What has happened since?  First, pesky LHO has wandered in at game level.  This is AI, and suggests that partner may have little wasted in the ♥ department, and somewhat increases the likelihood that partner has a ♠ fit.  This will persuade quite a lot of players not to pass, but I am convinced that enough will still pass for this to be a LA.

Second, partner has in weasel fashion told us that it is wrong to pass out 4♥, without being man enough to double or bid on himself.  Is doubling carefully avoiding taking advantage of this UI?  No, it is not.

And for completeness is double suggested?  Yes because it caters to whatever partner's borderline action was.  If he was thinking of doubling himself, he will float it; if he was thinking of bidding 4♠, he will do that.

Fairly close as a bidding problem, but as a ruling, with the modern fierce definition of LAs, not close.

Oh, the modern definition of LAs is not fierce at all. If for example the Director were to consider that cherdanno, peachy, Codo and gwnn are a sufficiently representative sample of players in the same class as South, then it is clear to rule that pass is not a LA. If on the other hand the Director were to consider that bluejak, gordontd, cardsharp and greenender are a sufficiently representative sample of players in the same class as South, then it is clear to rule that pass is a LA.

What concerns me a little is how in the general case a Director is supposed to know to what class of players South belongs, and what other players constitute a representative sample of that class. That is, how is one supposed in the general case to "conduct a poll of peers of South as a bidding problem at South's second turn to call", as jallerton suggests?

In practice, since there were no uninvolved players of South's class present at the time except for myself, Robert Sheehan and Gunnar Hallberg, I considered the three of us a representative sample of players in the same class as South. None of us would seriously consider passing (and believe me, if Sheehan and I don't pass, then no one should pass). So I ruled that pass was not a LA, and that the table result stood (which meant that the question of whether redouble was wild or gambling action did not arise). This was in effect a Director's ruling that could be appealed, and it would not particularly have surprised me if the decision had been reversed, but the match result rendered an appeal unnecessary.

Formerly, of course, I would have had no difficulty at all in disallowing South's double per Law 73. But I'm not supposed to do that any more. Am I, Jeffrey?

[bluejak]

dburn, on Apr 9 2010, 02:25 PM, said:

Formerly, of course, I would have had no difficulty at all in disallowing South's double per Law 73. But I'm not supposed to do that any more. Am I, Jeffrey?

Why not?

What has changed?

[jdonn]

I think it's clear double is optional / value showing without discussion. It just has to show values or else there are too many hands on which you can't do anything sensible.

I also suspect everyone who answered noticed it was a weak notrump opposite, as opposite a strong notrump some people would probably have mocked anyone who wondered whether pass was an LA.

[Mbodell]

Yeah I agree values, and as I posted on the other thread X is crystal clear to me. To be honest, I'd be quite tempted to X opposite a mini(10-12)-nt (although I certainly wouldn't opposite a mini after a BIT by partner suggesting values).

[peachy]

bluejak, on Apr 8 2010, 09:43 PM, said:

One other question: did everyone who think double is obvious notice it was a weak no-trump?

I did. If it had been a strong NT, the question asked would be pretty stupid in the first place. Don't know what other adjective to use, sorry if this offends.

[dan_ehh]

Completely agree with gwnn's post.
I'd also like to add another reason why taking away 3 of my HCP and turning partner's 1NT to a strong NT is not an equivalent situation - we all know that it's better for both offense and defense that the values are split between the two hands.

This double is not for penalties. It shows some values, sometimes not enough for game, like in this case. Partner can bid 4♠ if he has a good fit, or leave it.

[FrancesHinden]

dburn, on Apr 9 2010, 01:25 PM, said:

In practice, since there were no uninvolved players of South's class present at the time except for myself, Robert Sheehan and Gunnar Hallberg, I considered the three of us a representative sample of players in the same class as South.

Wot, no telephone?

[FrancesHinden]

bluejak, on Apr 9 2010, 02:43 AM, said:

Having read some of the posts with amazement, it is clear there is another question that also needs answering:

If you double, what does it mean?

Me, I play it as penalties. But several of the posters seem to play it as optional. Perhaps a slow double is optional, a fast one is penalties.

Double just means "it is our hand"
When you made a bid the previous round that could have been anything from 0 to 20 HCP you need some way to tell partner that your side has the balance of the points.

What would you do with a 5=1=4=3 12-count? Bid 4S?

As gnasher says, I expect partner to bid with four spades, pass with two and look further at his hand with three.

When I was given the problem I said I would double, and it's between "obvious" and "close"; I think it's "normal".

Quote

One other question: did everyone who think double is obvious notice it was a weak no-trump?

Yes. It's not much of a problem opposite a strong NT, is it?

[FrancesHinden]

Fluffy, on Apr 9 2010, 11:09 AM, said:

bluejak, on Apr 9 2010, 02:43 AM, said:

One other question: did everyone who think double is obvious notice it was a weak no-trump?

I am amazed with all those doubles, I know little about weak NT, but if I had same shape with 5 HCP facing a strong NT I wouldn't ever think of anything but pass.

It's a bit different opposite a strong NT, because partner is more likely to be able to act on his own.

Holding a weak NT, it's wildly unlikely that partner will ever be able to act over 4H when we are vul against not. At the opposite vul, he may be able to bid 4S sometimes with a spade fit on the basis that if partner has nothing it's likely to be a good save but he can basically never bid with a weak NT, and is almost certain not to have four defensive tricks.

Holding a strong NT he may have four defensive tricks, or he may have such a suitable hand for spades that he's prepared to bid anyway e.g. QJ10x xx AKxx AKx

[dburn]

FrancesHinden, on Apr 10 2010, 05:31 AM, said:

dburn, on Apr 9 2010, 01:25 PM, said:

In practice, since there were no uninvolved players of South's class present at the time except for myself, Robert Sheehan and Gunnar Hallberg, I considered the three of us a representative sample of players in the same class as South.

Wot, no telephone?

Sure I have a telephone. But it had not previously occurred to me that in order to give a Director's ruling, it was now a requirement to make a dozen phone calls at dinner time on a Friday evening. Has the EBU entered into some partnership with BT that I don't know about?

[jallerton]

dburn, on Apr 9 2010, 02:25 PM, said:

Oh, the modern definition of LAs is not fierce at all. If for example the Director were to consider that cherdanno, peachy, Codo and gwnn are a sufficiently representative sample of players in the same class as South, then it is clear to rule that pass is not a LA. If on the other hand the Director were to consider that bluejak, gordontd, cardsharp and greenender are a sufficiently representative sample of players in the same class as South, then it is clear to rule that pass is a LA.

No, all this proves is that a sample size of four is not big enough to determine with sufficient confidence that a particular action is not a logical alternative.

[However, a sample size of four may turn out to be sufficent to conclude with sufficient confidence that an action is a logical alternative.]

Quote

What concerns me a little is how in the general case a Director is supposed to know to what class of players South belongs, and what other players constitute a representative sample of that class. That is, how is one supposed in the general case to "conduct a poll of peers of South as a bidding problem at South's second turn to call", as jallerton suggests?

Well, the TD or one of his consultees might know the player in question, or he may be able to make a fair estimate of the player's standard from other factors, such as the player's position in the current event. There may be evidence of the player's system and style on the convention card.

Quote

Formerly, of course, I would have had no difficulty at all in disallowing South's double per Law 73. But I'm not supposed to do that any more. Am I, Jeffrey?

When you say "formerly", do you mean pre 1997, when the wording of this Law changed?

Under the 2007 Laws, there could be an adjustment under Law 73C if the TD determines that this particular South's bidding was influenced by the UI. That is why the TD should ask the player immediately why he doubled.

Let's consider South's mindset during the auction. Partner opens 1NT. At this point, South comes to the quick conclusion that he will transfer to spades and pass the transfer completion of 2♠. He will not give any consideration whatsoever at this point as to what he might do if LHO makes a jump overcall.

LHO now puts the 'stop' card on the table followed by 4♥. Now we come to the critical few seconds.

Scenario 1. If as South I decide, before North has finished obeying the 'stop warning'* that I am going to double 4 ♥, then when it later transpires that (rather surprisingly) partner was considering acting I shall know that I can double without breaching Law 73C. However, I now need to consider whether or not Pass is a logical alternative, as I also need to comply with Law 16A.

Scenario 2. If I have not decided for sure what to do by the time it becomes apparent to me that partner was considering acting*, then I determine that double would be a breach of Law 73C and so I shall pass out 4♥. I would also note that I have seriously considered both pass and double, so both are logical alternatives and that I need to pass to comply with Law 16A also.

* the time period will vary from partner to partner. I am lucky enough to have some partners who adhere to the 'stop' regulations properly, which will give me ten seconds or so; but with other partners I know I have less time, particularly if LHO picks up the 'stop' card prematurely (or does not bother to use it at all).