[Chris3875]

---

Dealer W
Nil Vul.

Bidding
1C - P - 2C - X
2NT - 3D - P - 3H
All Pass
Making 9 tricks

This was the subject of after play discussion - I was not the Director on the day (in fact the Director was East).

E/W were not happy - when they queried the double they were told "she wants me to speak" - there was no information about whether the hand could be weak or strong.

The 2NT rebid by the opener showed 18+ points but East was unsure after the double by South so did not bid on.

My thoughts were that North had not given any misinformation (although he could have explained more fully that in their system the double could be as low as 6HCP). East should have trusted partner when he rebid 2NT showing 18+ pts. West does not open 2C with this hand because he has 5 losers (only opens 2C with 4 or less losers).

Would you have adjusted the score if called to the table as Director - E/W could make 6NT or 6C. I would have let the result stand.

[jeremy69]

The problem seemed to occur because East didn't know the methods rather than anything North did. I would not adjust the score.

[peachy]

North and South have done nothing wrong. Result stands.

[campboy]

Did you ask N/S whether the double could systemically be on that sort of hand? To be honest, it looks from the auction as if all four players are quite weak, and I imagine South just doubled because he didn't know what else to do.

[blackshoe]

So EW ask for an explanation, get a completely inadequate response, and fail to ask for clarification? What's up with that?

I'm not so sure South's was an "I don't know what else to do" double. Looks like ELC to me. OTOH, the comment about LTC with balanced hands may indicate some weakness in bidding theory (or not, I'm not exactly the Einstein of bridge myself ). OTGH, what's wrong with opening 2NT on that hand? Is 20 HCP outside their 2NT range?

I agree with others — while NS could and should have explained their agreement better EW should not have let them get by with one so poor. Particularly when one of them is the playing director.

[jdonn]

No matter what else EW failed to play bridge.

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Apr 3 2010, 01:24 PM, said:

No matter what else EW failed to play bridge.

Dr. Temperance"Bones" Brennan Ph.D. said:

I don't know what that means.

[Chris3875]

These are just your basic club bridge players.

E/W don't open 2NT with that hand because their system is that a 2NT opening or overcall is "unusual".

My big hobby horse is that players should give FULL disclosure of their systems and that North should have indicated "partner wants me to speak AND her double could be weak".

In this instance I felt that E failed to believe her partner was playing their system when he rebid the 2NT showing 18+ points.

My response that I would have let the result stand had I been called to the table didn't go over too well.

[jdonn]

I think it means you fail to bid game (or double the opponents) with 30 HCP combined for no good reason at all.

[Phil]

jdonn, on Apr 3 2010, 03:53 PM, said:

I think it means you fail to bid game (or double the opponents) with 30 HCP combined for no good reason at all.

Reminds me of the story I told in this thread: Combined 35

[bluejak]

There seems a presumption that N/S did not explain fully, but I wonder ...

If you ask the average club player what the double shows in this position they will ave little idea: they might eventually admit to opening bid values, not because they have such an agreement but it is their best guess. I would think that very few have any agreement as to values whatever.

Then when a hand comes along they just decide either it is right or it is not.

As for ELC. they would have no idea whatever what that meant: and they would have no idea as to whether 3♥ showed extras.

My guess is that they did not give inadequate disclosure here: my guess is that they told E/W all their agreements, and East then made an unfortunate and unjustified presumption.

[duschek]

Chris3875, on Apr 3 2010, 02:10 AM, said:

E/W were not happy - when they queried the double they were told "she wants me to speak" - there was no information about whether the hand could be weak or strong.

In other words, a takeout double. Which is what South thinks she has. No adjustment.

[dburn]

bluejak, on Apr 3 2010, 07:45 PM, said:

There seems a presumption that N/S did not explain fully, but I wonder ...

If you ask the average club player what the double shows in this position they will ave little idea: they might eventually admit to opening bid values, not because they have such an agreement but it is their best guess.  I would think that very few have any agreement as to values whatever.

Then when a hand comes along they just decide either it is right or it is not.

As for ELC. they would have no idea whatever what that meant: and they would have no idea as to whether 3♥ showed extras.

My guess is that they did not give inadequate disclosure here: my guess is that they told E/W all their agreements, and East then made an unfortunate and unjustified presumption.

I am not sure I follow this. Are you really suggesting that "the average club player" does not know what 1♣-Pass2♣-Double shows in terms of values?

I presume, but cannot be certain, that this incident occurred in Australia. I do not know what alerting regulations they have Down Under, but I know the regulations we have in England:

Orange Book 2008 section 4D4 said:

...the practice of doubling for take-out on unusually weak hands should be disclosed on the convention card.

and:

Orange Book 2008 section 4H6 said:

Take-out doubles are frequently based on shortage in the suit doubled and preparedness to play in the other unbid suits, failing which significant extra values may be expected.

Do average club players in England know much more than those in Australia, so that an English player must know (and disclose) what constitutes an "unusually weak hand" while an Australian will have "little idea"? If not, why do we have these regulations at all?

[bluejak]

dburn, on Apr 5 2010, 05:22 PM, said:

I am not sure I follow this. Are you really suggesting that "the average club player" does not know what 1♣-Pass2♣-Double shows in terms of values?

Yes, of course. Do you really play in average clubs? If you believe they know what this shows I think you are an incurable optimist.

dburn, on Apr 5 2010, 05:22 PM, said:

I presume, but cannot be certain, that this incident occurred in Australia. I do not know what alerting regulations they have Down Under, but I know the regulations we have in England:

Orange Book 2008 section 4D4 said:

...the practice of doubling for take-out on unusually weak hands should be disclosed on the convention card.

and:

Orange Book 2008 section 4H6 said:

Take-out doubles are frequently based on shortage in the suit doubled and preparedness to play in the other unbid suits, failing which significant extra values may be expected.

Do average club players in England know much more than those in Australia, so that an English player must know (and disclose) what constitutes an "unusually weak hand" while an Australian will have "little idea"? If not, why do we have these regulations at all?

If you wish to argue about different sequences, feel free. But we are not talking about 1♣ dbl here. You will tell me, perhaps, that that is not the sequence to which the Orange book refers. Well, you may be right, but th average club player will have no idea what you are talking about.

As for why we have regulations, we have them for specific problems. Extrapolating them to completely different situations by over-use of pedantry or semantics may be fine for BLML, but does not get us any further. Suggesting that English players know irrelevant regulations and that proves something about the knowledge of Australian club players is a very curious and unsupportable assertion.

[barmar]

Are EW playing inverted minors (East's hand is pretty heavy for a single raise if not)? If they are, it seems like it would be general bridge logic that a takeout double by South would be based more on shape than strength, since EW are known to have the majority of strength.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on Apr 6 2010, 02:04 AM, said:

Are EW playing inverted minors (East's hand is pretty heavy for a single raise if not)?

I would presume not, since the raise would require an alert, and there wasn't one.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on Apr 6 2010, 07:44 AM, said:

barmar, on Apr 6 2010, 02:04 AM, said:

Are EW playing inverted minors (East's hand is pretty heavy for a single raise if not)?

I would presume not, since the raise would require an alert, and there wasn't one.

Also in Australia?

(In The Netherlands inverted minors do not require an alert. Don't know about Australia.)

Rik

[blackshoe]

Yes, in Australia. I did look it up before I posted that.