[mikeh]

mfa1010, on 2010-December-30, 08:36, said:

I would just pass. I need more for a double. Scrambling out to something might work out fine for us, but partner needs a lot of beef before we have them nailed and having them nailed sometimes should be an important factor for doubling here. Partner will rightly pass 1NTX a lot and double 2♥ a lot and it will all be very scary.

I agree with this. LHO is unlimited. If he intends to pass 1N, then partner holds 5-6 hearts (even 7 is possible), and where are we heading? Meanwhile we may be defending a contract that the opps can effectively play double-dummy, no matter where they end up after my double.

Having said that, I am even worse at mps than I am at imps, so it wouldn't surprise me to see that the high-variance double is the winning call. I just don't think I'd do it....I dislike bottoms more than I like tops, I guess.

[Free]

This was actually an UI case. My partner hesitated on the 1♥ call and passed (he can bid 2♥ natural with his 12HCP but his suit was only KJxxxx). When RHO bid 1NT, my LHO asked me to confirm that there was a clear hesitation, which I did. I doubled 1NT because it means takeout for ♥ which is what I have (with a strong hand with ♦ I can bid 1♦-2♦ immediately).

My LHO, probably annoyed by the fact that his response with xxx-Txxx-Qxx-Kxx didn't work well, called the TD immediately after my partner passed the Dbl. TD said to continue the auction and play, and call him back afterwards if they feel damaged. How would you rule when you're called back at the table?

[gnasher]

Free, on 2011-January-03, 04:27, said:

This was actually an UI case. My partner hesitated on the 1♥ call and passed (he can bid 2♥ natural with his 12HCP but his suit was only KJxxxx). When RHO bid 1NT, my LHO asked me to confirm that there was a clear hesitation, which I did. I doubled 1NT because it means takeout for ♥ which is what I have (with a strong hand with ♦ I can bid 1♦-2♦ immediately).

My LHO, probably annoyed by the fact that his response with xxx-Txxx-Qxx-Kxx didn't work well, called the TD immediately after my partner passed the Dbl. TD said to continue the auction and play, and call him back afterwards if they feel damaged. How would you rule when you're called back at the table?

Before I read MFA's and MikeH's comments, I would have said that pass isn't a logical alternative in a partnership where double is takeout. Those comments, however, suggest that it is a logical alternative, though it depends on whether you're in the same class of players as MFA and MikeH.

[cherdano]

This does not seem difficult. You had UI. UI made doubling clearly more attractive, you are less likely to run into a redouble, and you are more likely to get +200/+500. Passing is a logical alternative, as proven by Mike's and Michael's posts.
So assuming you gained an advantage from doubling, the auction gets rolled back.

Are you asking whether double deserves a PP? That seems a tad harsh.

[mcphee]

I like to be aggressive in this spot and even knowing partner holds H I want to get in now with some safety, so I would double 1NT as t/o of H. Todays strong C players open rather marginal hands because they can. It would have been nice to know what the opps opening NT range is, some 13-15 others adopting a 15-17. I appreciate I am sticking my neck out here and could be going for a zero. That said thankfully this is pairs and only one board. A 2C overcall carries risk I am not willing to take at this stage, nor take over 1D.

Once your partner hesitated over 1H you have a problem for sure as taking any action is not clear cut. I would rule against you.

[mfa1010]

I would roll back to 1NT undoubled.

Likely a penalty to west. It is very unacceptable to bully an opponent not to act. It is crucial that west keeps his mouth shut until south has made his call. (With the usual reservation that we only have one side's version of the story).

[JLOGIC]

Free, on 2011-January-03, 04:27, said:

This was actually an UI case. My partner hesitated on the 1♥ call and passed (he can bid 2♥ natural with his 12HCP but his suit was only KJxxxx). When RHO bid 1NT, my LHO asked me to confirm that there was a clear hesitation, which I did. I doubled 1NT because it means takeout for ♥ which is what I have (with a strong hand with ♦ I can bid 1♦-2♦ immediately).

My LHO, probably annoyed by the fact that his response with xxx-Txxx-Qxx-Kxx didn't work well, called the TD immediately after my partner passed the Dbl. TD said to continue the auction and play, and call him back afterwards if they feel damaged. How would you rule when you're called back at the table?

Lol or he was annoyed that you likely violated the rules (which, in fact, you did!). But sure, it must just be a case of sour grapes on his part.

[Free]

JLOGIC, on 2011-January-04, 12:17, said:

Lol or he was annoyed that you likely violated the rules (which, in fact, you did!). But sure, it must just be a case of sour grapes on his part.

Please explain which rules I violated. Before I explained this was an UI case, most people playing Dbl as takeout of ♥ considered this an obvious Dbl. Pretty much the only passers were people with a different agreement. Considering this, it seems to me that I didn't make any abuse of UI.

[JLOGIC]

You had Unauthorized Info (which you admitted at the time, your partner broke tempo). Do you debate this?

This unauthorized info demonstrably suggested doubling (partner is marked with values). Do you debate this?

Passing was a logical alternative to bidding, as evidenced by this thread (some people viewed passing to be correct). Do you debate this?

Since you must choose between logical alternatives not demonstrably suggested by the unauthorized info gained from partner's break in tempo, you must PASS. Do you debate this?

But of course, when your opp has the audacity to call the director on your infraction, you accuse him of doing so because he was sore that his bid had not worked out, even after reading the replies to this thread. LOL. Classic Free. Did you consider that he called the director because you violated the rules and he wanted equity to be restored?

[gnasher]

To say that you broke Law 16 doesn't mean you did anything improper. Deciding what your logical alternatives involves using judgement. If you decide that pass isn't a logical alternative, and the director decides that it is, all it means is that your judgement is different from his.

If a poll reveals that a significant proportion of your peers would have passed without any UI, that means that pass was a logical alternative, and therefore that you broke the rules. But so what? You didn't so so intentionally; the only thing you did wrong was to misjudge what other people would do with your hand.

[dburn]

Curious position, this. That slow pass over 1♥ usually shows a hand just short of the values for a natural 2♥ overcall. If I knew partner had that, I would pass - defending 1NT doubled is top-or-bottom stuff, and without the ten in any of my three suits I consider a bottom more likely than a top.

So, the UI suggests to me that I pass, so I should double if takeout of hearts. If the partnership agreement is that double shows a diamond trap, then of course I pass now, but I will be changing either my agreement or my partner in short order (in truth, if I played this way I would overcall 1♠ in order either to get a good result or to persuade my partner to give up on me before I gave up on him - I hate being the bad guy in partnership break-ups).

Still, at the table I am sure I would pass - if I double, everyone passes, and we beat the hand I don't think I could live with it. Without any UI this is an obvious double; with the UI it is not at all obvious how I should try to comply with the Laws. Interesting question, though: if I passed, and they made it and asked me why I didn't double, what should I say?

[JLOGIC]

lol, your partner wanted to come in freely over 1m p 1H with 2H, you have this much defense, and you don't think you rate to set 1N X? Alright then...

[mfa1010]

dburn, on 2011-January-04, 16:47, said:

Curious position, this. That slow pass over 1♥ usually shows a hand just short of the values for a natural 2♥ overcall. If I knew partner had that, I would pass - defending 1NT doubled is top-or-bottom stuff, and without the ten in any of my three suits I consider a bottom more likely than a top.

So, the UI suggests to me that I pass, so I should double if takeout of hearts.

That is too convoluted. If partner huddles he has a hand where he might have had a foot. Or not even a foot.

[dburn]

JLOGIC, on 2011-January-04, 17:02, said:

lol, your partner wanted to come in freely over 1m p 1H with 2H, you have this much defense, and you don't think you rate to set 1N X? Alright then...

Well, to some extent that depends on how strong partner should be to overcall 2♥. For me, especially favorable at MP, he doesn't need much more than a decent weak jump overcall - he can do it with, say, ♥KJ1098x and a king (significantly stronger hands will pass and perhaps later bid hearts, particularly if the opponents are using a strong club). Your mileage may vary, and probably does, but it isn't quite the laughing matter you may think.

[dburn]

mfa1010, on 2011-January-04, 17:06, said:

That is too convoluted. If partner huddles he has a hand where he might have had a foot. Or not even a foot.

The business of deciding what you are required to do, bearing in mind Laws 16 and 73, is necessarily convoluted. As gnasher rightly says, it often comes down to the judgements of the player on the one hand and the umpires on the other hand, and the player should not object if overruled by the umpires.

But the question is not simply one of "I have an obvious call, so I should make it"; instead, the question is one of "what does the UI suggest I should do?" Here, the UI suggests that partner has a lot of hearts, but not quite enough to bid 2♥. If that is the actual case, then to me the UI suggests that I pass, so I should not pass if without the UI I would have doubled. But your partner might need rather more to bid 2♥ on this auction than mine would need, so to you the UI might suggest rather more in partner's hand than it would suggest to me.

It is a curious fact that although there now seems to be a consensus among expert players that a 2♥ overcall on this auction should be natural, there is no consensus as to how strong it should be. The only high-level pronouncement on the matter I have ever seen came from either Berkowitz or Cohen (I cannot remember which, but I'm sure it was one of them), who suggested that it ought to be about a good WJO. Maybe that has not found a wider audience. Maybe it's a silly idea anyway. But it makes sense, and it's what I play in my partnerships. Tell me - how strong is the bid in yours?

[JLOGIC]

How do you get from this fact:

A 2H bid may be based on a lightish hand with a very strong suit

To:

Partner thinking about overcalling 2H suggests that we will not beat 1N, since he might have been thinking with a lightish hand and a strong suit

When partner thinks, we know he rates to be stronger than had he not thought. This is a certainty. Even if he would think about overcalling light, he also might think about overcalling with 11 points and 6 hearts, whatever. It is certainly true that the range of hands on which he thinks over 1H with is stronger than the range of hands he does not think over 1H with.

On top of this, we know he has good hearts behind LHO which can only be good for defense. All of this means that doubling will work out in our favor quite often when partner has thought over 1H. Not just that, but partner might well have been thinking with a 6-4 hand type (with 6322 it is much less attractive to bid), and this would give us a fit, regardless of what his other suit is.

The fact that we learned partner had heart length based on UI was not news, we have a heart void and the auction went 1m-1H-1N. If LHO happens to be very long in hearts he's going to bid 4H anyways most likely and it won't matter (or 2H which we will reopen with a double and it won't matter much). The news we gained from the break in tempo was that partner has MORE average high cards, and BETTER average hearts, all of which make doubling MORE likely to be a success.

If you think that 2H is not at minimum a good weak jump overcall, and is ALWAYS that then "LOL" I guess, but that is not a standard meaning and is not relevant unless these players can prove that they have that HIGHLY unusual agreement (otherwise it is simply a self serving statement by the offending side).

[gnasher]

dburn, on 2011-January-04, 17:40, said:

It is a curious fact that although there now seems to be a consensus among expert players that a 2♥ overcall on this auction should be natural, there is no consensus as to how strong it should be. The only high-level pronouncement on the matter I have ever seen came from either Berkowitz or Cohen (I cannot remember which, but I'm sure it was one of them), who suggested that it ought to be about a good WJO. Maybe that has not found a wider audience. Maybe it's a silly idea anyway. But it makes sense, and it's what I play in my partnerships. Tell me - how strong is the bid in yours?

It's a simple overcall at the two level, so I think it shows the same high-card strength as a simple two-level overcall in any other suit, but with a higher minimum suit quality. That might include a few hands that I'd open a weak two, but mostly hands that I'd open at the one-level. KJ109xx and a king sounds a bit weak to me, but AJx KJ109xx xx xx would be enough.

[dburn]

As I said, at the table (where partner twitched over 1♥) I would pass - but I would pass because I think that's what the Laws require even though if partner had not twitched over 1♥ I would have an obvious double. His actual hand - king-jack empty sixth of hearts and a twelve count - is about par for the course in partnerships where twitching is par for the course (maybe with the ten of hearts, he would have bid). That is: in an untainted auction pass is (for me) not a logical alternative to double; but in this tainted auction I would pass anyway.

I suspect that (not for the first time) Justin and I may agree with each other despite appearing not to. The difference (not for the first time either) may lie in the fact that he has on his side the certainty of youth, while I have the doddery lack of conviction that accompanies old age. But the old blokes make the rules.

[JLOGIC]

Lol. I tried to bluff some old dude in poker yesterday, he tanked for like 3 mins and then called (story of my life) then called me "young and foolish." I guess I'll take "young and certain." It's better than old and senile!

Edit:

Sorry I cannot help it, but who do you think, on average acts more confident that they "know" what is right,

1) Older people
2) Younger people

The older people might cite wisdom, experience, whatever. Even when wrong/proven wrong, the older people are less likely to cede, especially to younger people. But at the end of the day, it comes down more to personality than anything else. I think some people act certain, some people act wishy washy. I'm sure you'd like to believe that all people when they get older realize they are more likely to be wrong in what they think than they did when they were younger, but that is not true. Again it comes down to personality and how people age.

And of course when discussing bridge, someone who is an expert (you or me) is more likely to think they're right about something, and are more likely to be right about something, than someone who is not an expert, regardless of age. For instance mtvesuvius rarely speaks with authority...shouldn't he under your theory, since he is only 14 or 15?

In my experience older people who are not expert are more likely to overestimate their knowledge/think they're right when they're not, but of course that comes down to personality as well.

You will rarely hear young people categorize and lump all elderly people together since it violates "respect your elders." You will often hear old people do that, and not use logic or arguments to back it up. Of course, they will again cite their wisdom.

Unfortunately, wisdom is not always a substitute for intelligence. If you did hear young people lump older people together, they might factually say that older people are:

1) Less capable of learning
2) Less capable of admitting they were wrong
3) Less likely to accept an argument of someone younger than themselves, even if the younger person is more likely to be right or has a better argument
4) Less capable of adapting
5) More biased/prejudiced against groups of people, for instance younger people
6) MORE arrogant (oh yes!)

among other things. It is assumed that all people become wiser as they age. It is assumed that this wisdom translates into some kind of inherent knowledge. In fact you might even argue that older people are, on average, more likely to think they know everything than young people! These assumptions are of course arrogant by themselves. I guess it helps some older people sleep at night, but hey at least I recognize that not all older people are the same and should not be stereotyped as such.

Perhaps, if you are capable of it, you might consider that I am confident when discussing certain bridge situations, especially with you, because:

1) It is both human nature and in my case my natural disposition to be confident when I am arguing, especially about bridge, especially when discussing bridge with people who I consider to be generally inferior players and thinkers.

2) You, as I posted, made a logical thought process error. It was obvious what your error was, hence I pointed it out (that's why it's a discussion forum). Gnasher, who is also good at bridge and no doubt smarter and a better thinker than me, also did not agree with your statement. No one has posted agreement with you. So, I saw where you went wrong, other people I respected did also, and no one agreed with you. That makes me more confident that I am right and you are wrong.

3) You frequently make those types of errors on the forums. Your defense is often something about youthful arrogance err CONFIDENCE. This does not make me gain respect for you or your positions, and does not make me think that when you disagree with me that you are more likely to be right.

If I was wrong and you proved it, that would be fine, I would acknowledge it (an advantage of being young!). Would it make me less confident? Probably not, I know that I can be wrong, it happens.

[cherdano]

gnasher, on 2011-January-04, 19:16, said:

It's a simple overcall at the two level, so I think it shows the same high-card strength as a simple two-level overcall in any other suit, but with a higher minimum suit quality. That might include a few hands that I'd open a weak two, but mostly hands that I'd open at the one-level. KJ109xx and a king sounds a bit weak to me, but AJx KJ109xx xx xx would be enough.

Agree with this. I cannot understand making an overcall in RHO's suit with hand where we wouldn't overcall in an unbid suit - both the risk and the reward are higher.