[mrdct]

Made 10 tricks.

---

This hand came up in a congress swiss teams event on the weekend. North has been playing for decades (probably at least five) and has quite a lot of masterpoints, but wouldn't be considered an expert player. South is a bit less experienced. North-South's team finished about mid-field out of 60 teams which is probably a fair indication of their skill level.

The 2♠ opening was duly alerted by East and South immediately asked about it when it wasn't his turn, was politely picked up on this point by East and then North asked about it and doubled. 3♠ was not alerted or enquired about, but South went into the tank for about 30 seconds over it and then passed.

I'm happy to hear alternative views, but I don't believe 3♠ is alertable under Australia regulations. If relevant, the EW convention case says 2♠:3♠ is "to play" but is silent as to whether this is modified after 2♠ is doubled. A simple raise of a weak two being "to play" is a fairly standard treatment in Australia.

The TD was called by West prior to the final pass to get the BIT acknowledged and the contract went on to make 10 tricks. The TD was called back at the end of the hand and East-West contended that North had logical alternatives of pass and double so sought an adjustment to either 3♠W-3 or 3NTS-1 or some weighting thereof.

How do you rule?

[Cascade]

 mrdct, on 2012-February-12, 20:52, said:

Made 10 tricks.

---

This hand came up in a congress swiss teams event on the weekend. North has been playing for decades (probably at least five) and has quite a lot of masterpoints, but wouldn't be considered an expert player. South is a bit less experienced. North-South's team finished about mid-field out of 60 teams which is probably a fair indication of their skill level.

The 2♠ opening was duly alerted by East and South immediately asked about it when it wasn't his turn, was politely picked up on this point by East and then North asked about it and doubled. 3♠ was not alerted or enquired about, but South went into the tank for about 30 seconds over it and then passed.

I'm happy to hear alternative views, but I don't believe 3♠ is alertable under Australia regulations. If relevant, the EW convention case says 2♠:3♠ is "to play" but is silent as to whether this is modified after 2♠ is doubled. A simple raise of a weak two being "to play" is a fairly standard treatment in Australia.

The TD was called by West prior to the final pass to get the BIT acknowledged and the contract went on to make 10 tricks. The TD was called back at the end of the hand and East-West contended that North had logical alternatives of pass and double so sought an adjustment to either 3♠W-3 or 3NTS-1 or some weighting thereof.

How do you rule?

I don't think Pass is a logical alternative.

I don't think the tank suggests 4♥ over double.

Therefore score stands.

[vigfus]

Pass is by no doubt an LA here. Vulnerable against not. Law 16B
I rule 3♠ not doubled. 7 tricks to E/W.

[Cyberyeti]

I don't think pass is a LA, but X and 4♣ might be. If you end up in 3N, 5♣ or 5♥ which you might, I think you will make them so no damage, score stands.

[gordontd]

I think passing is a logical alternative, and acting rather than passing has been suggested by South's actions.

[pwg7]

 mrdct, on 2012-February-12, 20:52, said:

The 2♠ opening was duly alerted by East and South

Why was the opening bid alerted?

Australan alerting regs (5.1 c) say:
"Opening two bids which do not promise a holding of 4+ cards in the suit named, or which promise a holding in the suit named and another suit [should be alerted]" - implying that simple weak twos are not alertable.

[RMB1]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-13, 03:43, said:

I don't think pass is a LA, but X and 4♣ might be. If you end up in 3N, 5♣ or 5♥ which you might, I think you will make them so no damage, score stands.

I don't think 4♥ is suggested over other (positive) action, so if Pass is not a logical alternative then there is no infraction, and no adjustment. But I think Pass is a logical alternative.

[paulg]

I think pass is a LA too. Presumably NS do not play Leaping Michaels.

[Cyberyeti]

 paulg, on 2012-February-13, 06:41, said:

I think pass is a LA too. Presumably NS do not play Leaping Michaels.

Or play it stronger than that.

[aguahombre]

Even looking at South's hand, I don't see any suggested reason for his interest about the auction. He has a hand within the expected range partner should be expecting at the outset when the 2S bid was opened (and a useless KXX of spades to boot).

South also has about a heart less than predictable. Logical alternatives should be logical; and the action taken, when there was a L.A., needs to be somehow suggested in order for the TD to intervene with a rollback.

Maybe South's questions and interest were improperly timed, but maybe that was because of original curiosity followed by wondering why the bid was alerted to begin with. It certainly wasn't suggestive that he had a routine holding like he had.

[gordontd]

 aguahombre, on 2012-February-13, 07:01, said:

Maybe South's questions and interest were improperly timed, but maybe that was because of original curiosity followed by wondering why the bid was alerted to begin with. It certainly wasn't suggestive that he had a routine holding like he had.

It does suggest that he doesn't have a balanced Yarborough like he might have, especially when combined with his later tempo break.

[paulg]

 paulg, on 2012-February-13, 06:41, said:

Presumably NS do not play Leaping Michaels.

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-13, 06:49, said:

Or play it stronger than that.

Indeed, but then pass must be a logical alternative to making a call you decided the hand was not worth originally.

[Cyberyeti]

 paulg, on 2012-February-13, 07:41, said:

Indeed, but then pass must be a logical alternative to making a call you decided the hand was not worth originally.

Not necessarily, we certainly play our leaping michaels both stronger than that and forcing, this is one of your ways to bid a passable 4♣.

[phil_20686]

 gordontd, on 2012-February-13, 07:11, said:

It does suggest that he doesn't have a balanced Yarborough like he might have, especially when combined with his later tempo break.

If he has a balanced yarbourough with 4 hearts, its probably a good save vs 3S.

Would be delighted to be in game opposite heart Q and an ace.

Does not seem at all normal to pass the north hand.

Most importantly IMO, if you start with a double on this hand you are 100% committed to showing a strong flexible hand with 5 hearts if you can bid below 4S. If north thinks this hand is not worth 4H now, he should have bid 3H before. This sequence does not show more or less than 2S x p 3d p 3h.

His own bidding makes Pass not a LA.

[phil_20686]

 paulg, on 2012-February-13, 07:41, said:

Indeed, but then pass must be a logical alternative to making a call you decided the hand was not worth originally.

I think this argument is flawed - starting with a dble from a moderate or better player is clear evidence that they consider the hand too good for 3H. Thus pass is not a LA.

[gordontd]

 phil_20686, on 2012-February-13, 11:05, said:

I think this argument is flawed - starting with a dble from a moderate or better player is clear evidence that they consider the hand too good for 3H.

I don't think so. They might well have been expecting to rebid at the three level (or even elect to pass). I think if you gave the hand to players to ask them what they would do on the first round, many would double without considering that they were thereby forcing to game.

[gordontd]

 phil_20686, on 2012-February-13, 11:02, said:

This sequence does not show more or less than 2S x p 3d p 3h.

Really?

 phil_20686, on 2012-February-13, 11:02, said:

His own bidding makes Pass not a LA.

It seems takeout doubles at the two level have become game-forcing!

[mrdct]

 pwg7, on 2012-February-13, 04:37, said:

Why was the opening bid alerted?

Australan alerting regs (5.1 c) say:
"Opening two bids which do not promise a holding of 4+ cards in the suit named, or which promise a holding in the suit named and another suit [should be alerted]" - implying that simple weak twos are not alertable.

The 2♠ opening here would be alertable pursuant to Reg 13.4 "A natural call must be alerted if it is forcing or non-forcing in a way the opponents might not expect (e.g. inverted minor raises, preemptive raises, negative free bids) or if its meaning is affected by other agreements (e.g. a 1♥ opening that denies 4+ spades)". In this case East-West include crappy weak twos in their 2♦ opening so the meaning of 2♠ is affected by that other agreement in a manner that the opponents may not expect.

[phil_20686]

 gordontd, on 2012-February-13, 11:54, said:

I don't think so. They might well have been expecting to rebid at the three level (or even elect to pass). I think if you gave the hand to players to ask them what they would do on the first round, many would double without considering that they were thereby forcing to game.

You do not make t/o doubles with 1525 shape over a 2S opener. That way I never show my fifth heart and cannot bid over 3d as that would show a "strong flexible hand".

Doubling is even worse if bidding later shows a "strong single suiter" in the old style. Where are they expecting to go over a 3d response? Are they really never going to mention hearts over a club response? If partner has xxx Qxx KQxx xxx how are they planning to reach 4H without showing a hand too strong to bid 3H?

You should never dble with this shape unless you are planning to show a strong hand with 5+ hearts. This is a good hand. Showing a flexible hand with 5 hearts seems routine. If you arent prepared to do that at the 4 level, you should bid 3H and show your fifth heart. Obviously if they are terrible anything might be happening, but the OP seemed to indicate they were competent if not stellar.

Perhaps we should have polled, but given that peers are those who doubled first, I find it very hard to believe that they would go to bed without every planning to show that heart suit.

Your argument is basically that its "logical" to make a take out double with x AQJxx xx KQxxx. And I dont know anyone who would dble with that hand.

[mrdct]

I think Phil has hit on a point that neither the ruling director nor the appeals committee properly picked-up on in this case; being the need to put one's self in the shoes of a mediocre player who has "made their bed" with a sub-optimal initial action of double. At the appeal, the members of the appeals committee were all expert players running in the top 10% of the field and were all saying things along the lines of "I wouldn't dream of passing here as partner is marked with some values given the preemptive raise and I can't afford to be missing a vul game at IMPs" but what they failed to appreciate is that weak players quite regularly fail to count up the values evident in the auction and tend to have a fairly blinkered approach to bidding.

I don't believe a formal poll was conducted by either the TD or the AC, but if they did it need to be a poll of players playing around table 30 or below, not tables 1-5. The way a poll should be conduct here is to first ask what action you take over 2♠ and only ask the follow-up question of what to do when 3♠ comes back around to you of those people who chose to double 2♠. Whilst doubling 2♠ would not have crossed my mind, I'm sure the TD could've found a few people who would at the bottom end of the field which is where the poll should've taken place.

Anyway, both the TD and AC allowed the table result to stand.