[olegru]

---

2♣ - alerted, asked, explained as distributional GF with one- or two - suiters onle. Promise tricks, not neccesary points
2♦ - alerted, asked, explained as 0-1 controls
2NT - alerted, no questions this moment
After East double 5 clubs, South asked about meaning of 2NT - explained as untouched suits.
After completion of bidding, West said that it was misexplanation, 2NT means majors or minors.
Result - 5h, down 1

After completion of the board, South summoned director.
He complained that West already shown his major 2-suiter by bidding 2NT, and after his partner decided to double, had no reason to correct it, unless he think that partners decition based on incorrect perseption of his hand.
East-West explained that double was not clean penalty, but pass or correct.

Additional, probably not relevant, information:
1. 5♥ bid was made after very long hesitation;
2. EW use UDCA.
3. Result from the second table, 5 clubs made. North open 5 clubs, East lead Ace of diamonds, but 9 look discouraging (udca too) and he did not continue suit.
----------------------------------------

What should be directors decition?

[campboy]

Their statement that dbl was pass-or-correct seems entirely plausible (as well as being much more consistent with East's hand) and if it is true then passing is not a logical alternative.

[iviehoff]

campboy, on 2011-April-11, 09:47, said:

Their statement that dbl was pass-or-correct seems entirely plausible (as well as being much more consistent with East's hand) and if it is true then passing is not a logical alternative.

We can at least test that assertion with a poll. I find it hard, but then I'm not such a good player.

I do wonder which is the more ethical action, though. You know (from UI) that partner apparently thinks you have spades and diamonds. Producing a heart bid at the 5 level seems to me to be a very risky tactic in the circumstances. In fact it looks just like the sort of bid likely to lead to a mad grand slam that people are frequently accused of using UI to avoid. I beginning to wonder whether in fact it is the ethical action. The fact that I am rather unsure which is the ethical action might lead one to conclude that on this occasion neither is demonstrably suggested, so West is free to choose between them.

We should also consider East's decisions, because he also has UI. He apparently believes his partner has spades and diamonds, but his partner then produces a heart bid at the 5 level after a long hesitation. Hesitations in this situation generally suggest uncertainty, and UI suggesting uncertainty tends to suggest removing the bid, rather than leaving it. So I suspect that passing it (twice) was the ethical action.

I'm beginning to think that EW fell on their feet more by good fortune than abusive practice. Difficult one, though.

[gordontd]

What does untouched suits mean? The majors?

[edit] Ignore this I've worked it out now.

This post has been edited by gordontd: 2011-April-11, 10:59

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2011-April-11, 10:55, said:

What does untouched suits mean? The majors?

Presumably it means non-touching suits, so, one of ♣+♥, ♣+♠, ♦+♠

[mjj29]

lamford, on 2011-April-11, 10:59, said:

Presumably it means non-touching suits, so, one of ♣+♥, ♣+♠, ♦+♠

♣+♠ are usually considered touching

[lamford]

iviehoff, on 2011-April-11, 10:37, said:

Producing a heart bid at the 5 level seems to me to be a very risky tactic in the circumstances. In fact it looks just like the sort of bid likely to lead to a mad grand slam that people are frequently accused of using UI to avoid. I beginning to wonder whether in fact it is the ethical action.

This looks like one of those hands that dburn or jallerton will think was made up by me, and even posted on the site of whichever club it happens to be, so, for the avoidance of doubt, I will state that this is the first time I have seen the hand. Any hand with two losers normally qualifies as being made-up, as no self-respecting random dealing program would ever generate it!

But back to the issue as to whether 5H is demonstrably suggested. It clearly is not, and the best chance of a plus score would seem to be to pass, as partner might well have enough to beat this, especially if he has diamonds. In fact if he has as much as the ten of diamonds it goes off with correct defence, but I bet a TD would have to be unbelievably perceptive to impose 5H on West when it was wrong to bid. I also tend to believe E/W here and 5H was indeed the ethical choice.

[campboy]

iviehoff, on 2011-April-11, 10:37, said:

We can at least test that assertion with a poll. I find it hard, but then I'm not such a good player.

I don't see why it's contentious. Presumably "pass-or-correct" here means you are expected to pass with the option that includes clubs, but take out otherwise. This makes sense in terms of East's hand: he believes partner has ♠+♦ or ♥+♣ and wants to save in the former case and defend 5♣x in the latter.

[iviehoff]

campboy, on 2011-April-11, 12:10, said:

Presumably "pass-or-correct" here means you are expected to pass with the option that includes clubs, but take out otherwise. This makes sense in terms of East's hand: he believes partner has ♠+♦ or ♥+♣ and wants to save in the former case and defend 5♣x in the latter.

Well that's a new one on me. I can see it makes sense though.

[olegru]

I was South of that board and if director would rule "result to stay" it would be OK with me. I asked for director before opponents explained pass-or-correct nature of the double and I have no doubts about high ethical standards of those particular opponents. But somehow I would feel more fare if director would ask them to prove that double in that not-so-standard situation actually is pass or correct. (I am not sure if pass-or-correct 100% playable here. How should East bid if he would like to punish? Just pass and let us play 5 clubs with no double?)
Let’s look at more familiar topic. The same cards, the same bidding, this time correct explanation, but East hesitated before double. I bet East-West would have a very hard time to prove that West had no LA to pull the double. Especially if decision to pull took him more than 2 minutes. Why are we treating UI from tempo as a “worse sin” than direct UI?

Actually a director comes up with some kind of compromise decision. He adjusted result to 5 spades doubled down 2. Honestly speaking I am failing to see the law ground under this adjustment, for me it is just a decision to enable protest if result of this board will be critical. In real live it was not, they kill us on the table.

[campboy]

To answer your questions in reverse order:

iii) the legal grounds for the ruling you describe might be that although there is no logical alternative to 5♥ for West, 5♠ is now an LA for East (either immediately or after the double), and the hesitation suggests passing (I would not agree with this judgement, but it could be a legal ruling...)

ii) I don't think we are. The director should, in each case, investigate whether the double may be passed without the meaning that includes clubs; if not he will rule there is no LA. He should come to the same decision in each case.

i) I think that is the right way to play double after one of these multi-way bids where there is a danger that if you assume partner hasn't got their suit you will bid a ridiculous sacrifice. East really isn't going to have a penalty double very often here. On his actual hand he knows there is a double fit if partner has ♠+♦, and the vulnerability is ideal, but it is still possible for partner to have ♥+♣.

[bluejak]

Was this in North America?

Was the double alerted?

What are the rules for alerting doubles above 3NT where this took place?

[olegru]

Sorry did not see questions.

Yes, it is North America.

No, double was not alerted.

As far as I know, ACBL does not require to alert pass or correct double here, but I can be wrong.

[blackshoe]

The ACBL regulation is "most doubles do not require an alert". Whether this one falls under that "most" I'm not prepared to speculate. However, whether the double came above 3NT after the first round of bidding (which for a bid would require a delayed alert if an alert is required) is not relevant, since alerts of doubles are immediate whenever they occur.

[Trinidad]

campboy, on 2011-April-11, 09:47, said:

Their statement that dbl was pass-or-correct seems entirely plausible (as well as being much more consistent with East's hand) and if it is true then passing is not a logical alternative.

That is true, up to 5♥.

But if West has either ♣+♥ or ♦+♠ (as explained by "untouching suits"), he will pass with ♣+♥*. Therefore, from East's perspective West must have ♦+♠. How could East pass 5♥?

In other words, the statement that double was pass-or-correct is not that plausible anymore when East choses to pass 5♥.

Rik

* Even if one would want to include ♣+♠ in "untouching suits", this reasoning holds. West will also pass with ♣+♠. Thus, anything other than Pass must show ♦+♠.

[campboy]

Trinidad, on 2011-April-26, 02:47, said:

But if West has either ♣+♥ or ♦+♠ (as explained by "untouching suits"), he will pass with ♣+♥*. Therefore, from East's perspective West must have ♦+♠. How could East pass 5♥?

Isn't 5♥ therefore an impossible bid, since from West's point of view East may be trying to save in 5♦? Presumably this woke East up, and though he should of course have corrected his explanation at that point if so, N/S can't do any better if he does.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-April-26, 04:21, said:

Isn't 5♥ therefore an impossible bid, since from West's point of view East may be trying to save in 5♦? Presumably this woke East up, and though he should of course have corrected his explanation at that point if so, N/S can't do any better if he does.

He should call the director, rather than correct his explanation.

Of course he might not have realised his error, but might just be scratching his head wondering how his partner "corrected" clubs to hearts. And if he did not work out what was wrong, then he has not committed an infraction.

[jh51]

Not that it is relevant to this particular discussion, but I find it odd that 5♣ was not defeated at the other table. With all the lower cards visible, the ♦9 is clearly his lowest card and therefore encouraging. (I must admit that he might do the same with any H9 holding.)