[VixTD]

This occurred at a regional green-pointed Swiss Pairs event between pairs of a reasonable standard:

---

What action would you take here, and what else would you consider?

[ahydra]

I'll consider pass, and then - unsurprisingly - pass.

ahydra

[helene_t]

Double, assuming it is penalty. I don't think there are any alternatives.

[MrAce]

Double, obviously.

[blackshoe]

Seems to me there are three calls to consider: pass, double, and 5♥. I would not bid 5♥, that seems way over the top. I would not pass, that seems way too wimpy. So I would double.

[billw55]

Definitely double.

Also I am interested to see the north hand that motivated this bidding.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2014-May-07, 09:13, said:

Seems to me there are three calls to consider: pass, double, and 5♥. I would not bid 5♥, that seems way over the top. I would not pass, that seems way too wimpy. So I would double.

We're presumably in a forcing pass situation, so Pass isn't really wimpy, it's just non-committal.

So I consider whether to make a forcing pass or double. Since half my strength is in the opponents' suit, and my ODR is really low, I go with double.

[aguahombre]

Double is clear, IMO; this is not one of our forcing-pass scenarios. In fact, I don't think I have ever encountered any pair who play FP by a passed hand opposite a 3rd seat opening which didn't have enough to accept a game invitation. And only at the club would I see the 3H bidder bid 5H.

Righty could actually have the best hand at the table. But, I still double.

[RMB1]

Is there a follow-up poll about what a slow 4♥ suggests?

[helene_t]

RMB1, on 2014-May-08, 04:42, said:

Is there a follow-up poll about what a slow 4♥ suggests?

Maybe partner explained 3♥ as a mixed raise or something ....

[nige1]

VixTD, on 2014-May-07, 06:35, said:

This occurred at a regional green-pointed Swiss Pairs event between pairs of a reasonable standard:
What action would you take here, and what else would you consider?

---

IMO Double = 10, Pass = 6, and 5♥ = 5 are possible LAs.

RMB1, on 2014-May-08, 04:42, said:

Is there a follow-up poll about what a slow 4♥ suggests?

A slow 4♥ implies weak shape, so suggests pass and 5♥ over double.

helene_t, on 2014-May-08, 05:53, said:

Maybe partner explained 3♥ as a mixed raise or something ....

A "mixed raise" explanation suggests double and 5♥ rather than pass.

[VixTD]

The problem was that partner had alerted 3♥ and explained it as a weak pre-emptive raise. EW were playing Bergen raises, and West had forgotten. This was the full hand:

---

Result: 4♠X(N)-1, NS-100
At the end of play North had asked West why he had doubled, and got the answer "Because partner thinks I'm weak", which understandably got North's dander up. He called the director and said he didn't think West had a good reason to double.

When I asked West why he had doubled he sensibly came up with a story about having a flat defensive hand with probable trump tricks. I asked them about their general methods and they said they didn't have a particular penchant for opening light third in hand, nor do they have firm agreements about when a pass would be forcing.

I asked a few good players what they would do given the authorized information, and got easily enough votes for pass (even though I think, like many of you, that double is an obvious call). I think that double is suggested over pass by the explanation. After much deliberation I adjusted the score to 4♠(N)-1 to both sides.

North asked me later whether I had considered giving West a procedural penalty for taking advantage of unauthorized information. What do you think of that?

[MrAce]

VixTD, on 2014-May-08, 07:19, said:

The problem was that partner had alerted 3♥ and explained it as a weak pre-emptive raise. EW were playing Bergen raises, and West had forgotten. This was the full hand:

---

Result: 4♠X(N)-1, NS-100
At the end of play North had asked West why he had doubled, and got the answer "Because partner thinks I'm weak", which understandably got North's dander up. He called the director and said he didn't think West had a good reason to double.

When I asked West why he had doubled he sensibly came up with a story about having a flat defensive hand with probable trump tricks. I asked them about their general methods and they said they didn't have a particular penchant for opening light third in hand, nor do they have firm agreements about when a pass would be forcing.

I asked a few good players what they would do given the authorized information, and got easily enough votes for pass (even though I think, like many of you, that double is an obvious call). I think that double is suggested over pass by the explanation. After much deliberation I adjusted the score to 4♠(N)-1 to both sides.

North asked me later whether I had considered giving West a procedural penalty for taking advantage of unauthorized information. What do you think of that?

Normally I would not consider PP. After all both N and S coming from pass, and then bidding 4♠ after their opponents bid 4♥. You can take out the double and make it 4♠ -1 if you believe UI may have a role in double(which I think you were right) But that does not necessarily mean W used UI. However if you confirmed that W really said "Because my pd thinks I am weak" then I think you have to give PP. The guy (W) confessed it after all.

[blackshoe]

Given West said what he said, I agree with a PP for EW, and with the adjustment given.

I do wonder, though... East has given NS MI. Does that affect anything? I don't have time to think about that right now.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2014-May-08, 03:41, said:

Double is clear, IMO; this is not one of our forcing-pass scenarios. In fact, I don't think I have ever encountered any pair who play FP by a passed hand opposite a 3rd seat opening which didn't have enough to accept a game invitation. And only at the club would I see the 3H bidder bid 5H.

Huh? Opener DID accept the game invitation.

Or do you think it's different because he was just competing against 3♠?

[billw55]

OK, so north thought west was weak, this encouraged his 3♠ call. Even so, it seems pushy to me.

Obvious PP for west, considering the statement in the OP that these are players "of a reasonable standard".

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2014-May-08, 09:19, said:

Huh? Opener DID accept the game invitation.

Or do you think it's different because he was just competing against 3♠?

No, I could have sworn opener passed 3S. I was wrong, or someone snuck in an edit. Nevertheless, a PH l.r. doesn't create a FP for us. Opener could get Responder's further involvement by bidding something other than mere acceptance..new suit with side length to let us choose whether to continue --not a slam try here, merely getting Responder into the decision making process. He didn't do that, so we just do what we do...I double.

I am quite sure everyone agrees with the 1H opening bid here. They would prefer to reserve a 4H opening for a hand where they would like to confuse partner and the opponents at the same time.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2014-May-08, 13:02, said:

No, I could have sworn opener passed 3S. I was wrong, or someone snuck in an edit.

If there was, it was before I posted, and hence before you responded to my post.

Quote

Nevertheless, a PH l.r. doesn't create a FP for us.

Agreed -- it was the acceptance of the invitation that did.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2014-May-09, 09:37, said:

Agreed -- it was the acceptance of the invitation that did.(create a FP)

And on that, we disagree for the reasons I already stated above. Even if Opener had elicited my opinion about bidding on via a minor-suit bid, we are not in a FP.

[Trinidad]

VixTD, on 2014-May-08, 07:19, said:

North asked me later whether I had considered giving West a procedural penalty for taking advantage of unauthorized information. What do you think of that?

Given that this (BBF) poll pretty clearly states that pass is not an LA (and, hence, that there was no infraction) I would not give a PP.

The fact that East thought West was weak may have been a reason for West to double (which would merit a PP), but nobody said that it was his only reason. When you came at the table he gave essentially the same argument as "everybody" here: Pass is not an LA.

Your (local) poll said that pass was an LA, so you adjusted. On the other hand, I get the impression that pass was a minority choice. (And here it certainly is.) That means that the judgement whether pass was an LA wasn't easy to make. When a player could genuinely and for good reasons think that pass is not an LA, then IMO you can't give him a PP.

Rik