Help please!
This is the hand and the bidding.
EW Complain that the 3H should have been alerted as it's clearly for penalties.
S claimed he was showing values. While NS say they play negative doubles up to 3S this specific situation had not been discussed.
My instinct was to believe that under their system it was takeout but I was unhappy about N's pass which seems a very strange bid (he claimed he was converting to a penalty double on points alone).
This led me to law 21B1(b): "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary."
I know failure to alert is misinformation, and I wasn't convinced that in their system it had been agreed as takeout, so it seems that 21B1(b) applies.
Did I do right? If not what should I have done?
Further I am concerned by two things
1) saying the lack of alert was misinformation when they hadn't specifically agreed it in an unusual situation seems a bit like begging the question.
2) I am (in part) using my personal view of N's action to determine what their system was - that also doesn't seem right.
Comments
Should another question be, 'what would you do with the correct information?'
Perhaps west can redouble for rescue (if they have that in their armoury) and they might find 4D, but perhaps not?
It does look to me like an undiscussed situation - partly because I have not discussed this with my partner and we play take-out doubles up to (and including) 3S (unless we have already bid a fit or shown a stop in that suit already). So with S's hand, I feel I can either pass, hoping for partner to double, double myself or gamble on 3NT. All of those options feel like a gamble and so I think that I would take all 3 options at times...
I do not think that I would alert the double as ostensibly our agreement is for take-out although my hand does not fit the double very well...
"While NS say they play negative doubles up to 3S .... "
Playing negative doubles up to 3S specifically caters for jump overcalls, which are not too uncommon. Otherwise you would be playing negative doubles only up to 2H. The evidence here is that they are not actually playing negative doubles up to 3S. How experienced are N or S or their partnership? I would want to chat with NS a bit more in search of enlightenment!
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
North's "converting on points" doesn't make any sense, given that North opened the bidding and doesn't have much more than a typical opening bid. (Did North forget the auction up to this point?) Unless North did forget, I think the only explanations are that neither player is playing the double as takeout (maybe despite an explicit agreement to play it as takeout), or that North has UI.
Note that a bid that just shows values (rather than shape) isn't a "takeout" double as most players (or the Blue Book) understand it, unless partner is systemically almost forced to pull it. The fact that North did pass it makes me think that this sort of double is actually an optional / "do something intelligent" double for this partnership, rather than pure takeout, and therefore should have been alerted. (South's description of the double fits "optional"/"values" better than it fits either a description of "takeout" or of "penalty"; North's description may have been adjusted to try to justify the double as "penalty" despite that not being the actual agreement.) In particular, I suspect the actual understanding between the players is along the lines of "North passes the double with a balanced hand", which fits both North's and South's bidding (and which would nonetheless cause South to not think of the double as penalty).
I would rule misinformation here. However, I'm not entirely convinced there was damage; if North was willing to double 3!h, then North would also be willing to double 4!d, and my double-dummy solver says that that's just as bad a contract (making 1 trick more, but a level higher, and thus going down the same amount). Of course, actual play doesn't necessarily match double-dummy play, but you'd need to have some idea of the standard of the event to see how it would be likely to go (and it's the wrong time of day for me to try to think through what would happen myself). So if N/S want to aim for a penalty here, E/W have nowhere to run and therefore, in respect of the bidding, it doesn't matter if they're misinformed because they ended up in the best possible spot anyway.
I would, however, be sympathetic if the misinformation caused East to mess up the play (by assuming that the heart strength was in North's hand rather than South's), and may well adjust the number of tricks as a consequence. I'd also be sympathetic if E/W claimed that South had hesitated, or otherwise given UI that might have influenced North into passing.
If you have got far enough as a partnership to discuss what level you play negative doubles to then accepting the "we haven't discussed this position" is stretching the credulity more than a bit.
Well, I have played with my main partner for 3 years or so now. We have agreed to play take-out doubles up to 3S but have not discussed this situation at all.
Here I would double about 1/3 of the time, knowing that it is a take-out double, expecting partner to bid, unless he thought that defending would be best. The double would show invitational values or more (about 11+), but not interested in a slam, or would have cue-bid 4H), so perhaps 16 max.
It is worth noting that what level I play takeout doubles to is one of those items I agree with a new or pick-up partner in casual BBO games... weak NT, 2 weak 2's, 2D relay over 2C and takeout doubles up to and including 3S - HELD discard with pickup partners or whatever they want with a new partner (preferring Italian myself), also usually RST with a pickup partner and 3 or 4-way transfers with a new partner.
Making a negative double on the South hand deserves to hear North bid a four-card diamond suit next. When North passes with a small doubleton, it seems to me they are not playing negative doubles in this situation.
Of course if they were playing negative doubles, they would be likely to get to the same point via:
(P)- 1S - (3H) - P; (P) - X - (P) - P, but perhaps West would try to rescue in some way.
I don't understand how you can agree to play negative doubles to 3S and then say you "haven't discussed" this situation. It's a one-level opening and a direct overcall and it's below 3S so you have discussed it. What auctions at the 3-level would be a negative double if this one isn't? If 1S (3D) dbl is negative but 1S (3H) dbl isn't, then clearly you aren't playing negative doubles "to 3S".
I don't see that this is grey, or dubious or anything debatable.
(There is one unclear one: is 1H-(3S) a negative double: does "up to 3S" mean including 3S or below 3S?)
If you double on the South hand, and think it is systemic, you are not playing negative doubles. A negative double is a take-out double. You do not have a take-out double. You have a penalty double. Playing negative doubles you have either a pass (hoping to defend) or a 3NT bid.
I would rule MI. South doubled with length in their suit and North passed with shortage. That is not a take-out double and pass.
Whether there is any damage is a different point, and as already mentioned it is not clear that there is.
(There are auctions on which you might make a negative double with length in their suit e.g. after 1D (2H) I would double on KQxx AJxx Kxx xx)
Well, I have agreed with my partners to play take-out doubles up to and including 3S, but have not discussed this specific situation. In fact, I have not discussed ANY specific situations - just "take-out doubles up to and including 3S". It is included on my main partner's convention card (Level to which negative doubles apply: 3 Spades)
"What auctions at the 3-level would be a negative double if this one isn't?"
How about these:
3S - X
1S - p - 3S - X
2S - p - 3S - X
1S - X - 3S - X
Had it been me and I had doubled with S's hand (which I might do occasionally) then it would be a non-systematic or off-shape double (if I decided that passing would be a bad idea and 3NT a gamble I wasn't willing to take).
Incidentally, the double (aside from being take-out) would also typically show 11+ HCP too and deny support for partner's S suit. In this situation, had my partner doubled and I was sat with north's hand, I may decide to pass. The double denies S support and we don't have a fit in a minor (I am assuming 4-4 in the minors, or possibly 5-4, but which is the 5 card suit?), so the choices are 3S, 4C, 4D or pass (I do not feel strong enough to cue bid 4H)... all of the suit bids look bad to me and as it seems we have a miss-fit, defending looks to be a good idea, as we have about 24+ points and no obvious game (should 3NT be making, then perhaps we can get the contract -3 and get a better than game score anyway).
We all make off-shape or out-side-of agreement bids at times... for example here, what is the jump to 3H? Presumably it is either a weak jump overcall (I agree this as 5-9) or intermediate (I agree this as 11-15). Here it has 10 points and so I would normally just overcall 2H, however, I might occasionally jump to 3H regardless of the agreed weak or intermediate values the system defines the bid as.
I do occasionally invent a bid where all systemic bids do not quite match my hand... In fact I called the director about one of my calls earlier this week as I felt that my bid was a psych and in the spirit of self-alerting online, decided I would report it to the director.
"How about these:"
None of these are Negative Doubles. Negative Doubles exist when RHO has overcalled partner's opening bid (with both opening and overcall being natural and in different suits). Negative doubles are a sub-set of take-out doubles.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Indeed.
Interesting... when I was taught some 10 years ago, take-out and negative doubles were used interchangeably. I was not aware that there was a difference. Live and learn
Having said that, I just had a quick look at negative double show 4-4 in the unbid suits with no support for partners suits. That to me would make N's pass even more attractive as it is then confirmed as being a hand with no fit, which makes defending a good option. So it would depend on the values shown by this double, if (as I play with my partners) it shows 11+ points (perhaps a 'good' 10 occasionally), then pass looks sensible. If they play negative doubles with potentially weaker hands, then a bid of 4C or 4D might be sensible.
If the negative double shows 4-4 in the unbid suits and no support for S, then S would have 3, 4 or 5 H's (as they can only have 0, 1 or 2S's). Would be hoping for AKS and a S ruff and the honours in partners assumed minor suits will be well placed over the overcall hand.
On the other hand, how will it play out if playing in 4C or 4D, in a 4-3 fit when it is known that one hand has a 6+ card H suit, so you are looking at a potentially bad split with your trump suit. Perhaps 2S, 1H, 2 of one minor and 3 of the other, for about 8 tricks and -2.
If it's a negative double which carries the possibility of partner passing without strength in the opponents suit, then surely it is mixed - may be penalty may be takeout. In such a case it should be alerted (BB4B2(a): Alert, unless the double is for take-out). This was the whole crux of the OP.
It does raise the spectre that maybe more (or even most) negative doubles should be alerted.
Also, I'm with Martin. I never really thought of a negative double as anything other than a take-out double (albeit one that denies support for partner's major if s/he bid one).
I don't think it raises the "spectre" that negative doubles (some, most or all) should be alerted. First of all they are for take out. They are not the same as take out doubles because there tends to be some sort of promise about suit holdings attached to them which is not necessarily present with a standard take out double ((1H) x can contain the classic shape, something not so classic, a strong jump overcall, a hand too strong to risk a simple overcall, a hand too good to overcall a direct 1NT for example).
The rule of "if they bid a suit naturally then double is not alerted if it is for take out else it is" is not very hard. Thus there is a long list of doubles which convey some sort of non standard message but isn't necessarily for penalty such as, say, a support double. Some negative doubles convey something specific and where this is very common e.g. 1C (1H) x showing 4S there is no reason for an alert or any problem arising from a lack of one.
I've little idea why (some) players make this so difficult. It is fairly simple as to when to alert or not but players persist in the "everyone plays is this way so why do I have to alert" e.g 2H Weak (3D) x or "they keep changing the rules" even though there has been no material change for 15 years.
In the example that started this thread it was clear that both South and north knew how they played the double. They just did not want to share that information with their opponents and if done deliberately there is a word for it!
Perhaps if players had engraved on their hearts
1. If a suit is bid naturally double is for take out but if not ALERT
2. If a suit is bid artificially then double is penalty else ALERT
3. If they bid NT naturally double is Penalty else alert
the this would cover almost all situations. Sure if you try hard you can find an exception e.g. above 3NT or doubling completion of a transfer etc but the rules above will allow you to get the alerting of 97.72% right!
Or even simpler we ought to tell the opponents what they need to know instead of hiding behind regulation.
I don't think that's the case. Having spoken to them at length, I came to the conclusion that they really didn't know what they were doing. S had no bid that described his hand particularly well and didn't know what to do (3NT seems a better bid if a bit of a punt). North passed on point count with nowhere else to go. Yes they may have pulled the wool over my eyes but I doubt it. I've known them both for some time, and I'm very good at telling when someone is being evasive (or even straight out lying) and when they are just confused or ignorant (in its non-prejudicial sense).
There was, I believe, no intention to deceive, but on balance an alert seems needed and this I am required to rule misinformation.
BB $b2(d) Alert, unless the double shows the suit bid. That is not the same as penalty - if nothing else there is no expectation that they will play in that denomination.
Indeed.
Distinguish the following two auctions:
1S 1NT P 2D (transfer)
dbl
and 1NT dbl 2D (transfer) dbl
We play the first double as showing diamonds ("penalties"), but the second double as general values, setting up a forcing pass. We alert the second.
I play the same method (in this respect) as Frances and I also alert the 2nd and not the first
Was there any UI due to the time it took South to make the double?I know that in general time is not so great a factor as in F2F and it was over a Jump Bid, but a player isn't normally going to break a convention in tempo. I mean - North might very well still pass on the basis that EW are relatively weak and there doesn't seem to be a fit - but are there any LAs to passing if there was UI?
This is absolutely the best way forward, and the ability to do this when playing online is one of the great attractions of that form of the game. It is also what the Laws (as opposed to the Regulations) say.
My preference would be everyone completes an online system "card" and opponents can look at that. If the particular aspect you wanted to know about is not there then an automatic MI ruling.
It certainly would not be my preference, firstly if on bbo the card is in a horrible and difficult format and second i'd far rather have someone give me some accurate and helpful info. than hunt for it. If you ruled MI because something was missing it would be a 3 table Howell very quickly.