[Free]

Hi all,

A problem hand that came up yesterday. The bidding goes:

2♠ - 3♦ - Dbl - Pass
Pass - 3♥ - Dbl - All pass

I was South.
2♠ was explained as "5♠, 4+m, less than an opening".

After "Dbl - p - p", my RHO asks what the Dbl means, and my partner explains it as "penalty".

Result was 3♥*-1 (by bad play), so 200 for us. The director was called at the table, because I had no ♦s (they had 11 ♦s together) and my Dbl was meant as optional Dbl. 3♦ would be just made and they thought they were set up, but they were still playing in a 4-4 ♥ fit.

This was the hand (small cards may be wrong):

Scoring: MP

---

What would you descide???

Result (hidden):

Spoiler

The director said it's not written in our system notes or our convention card that the double is penalty, so the explanation was wrong. Then, according to some article he stated that 3D* should be the end contract, so my opps got a 690. But imo, it doesn't make any difference what my double means. If it's optional and my partner passes, it becomes a penalty, so if they run somewhere else, it's their own fault... no?

Was he right?

[McBruce]

This is a very clear case of the need BBO TDs have, to be able to make non-balancing adjustments. East's pull, even with the misinformation, seems crazy to me, and it seems that going down in 3♥ is very poor play.

However, this is online bridge and there is no harm in explaining your own calls in private chat when the opponents inquire. By allowing North's explanation of penalty to stand, South has committed a serious infraction and damage has resulted.

I would make East-West eat their score but I would give North-South minus 670 (3♦ doubled making).

[Free]

It was in a f2f match, sorry, forgot to mention that...

[Gerardo]

McBruce, on Mar 7 2004, 06:44 PM, said:

By allowing North's explanation of penalty to stand, South has committed a serious infraction and damage has resulted.

Problem is, South may not know what the explanation is (assuming online)

Agree on different scores for North-South and East-West, though

[McBruce]

In f2f I think it is a slightly different story.

If your agreement is that the double is for penalty, there is no infraction. If you have no clear agreement, or an agreement that the double is something else, then your partner's explanation is mistaken. In that case, you were correct in letting the play begin without explaining that there had been misinformation, since this would give partner unautorized information.

I'm having a hard time believing that the double is for penalty when you have a known 8-card fit and a void in the opponent's suit. It seems clear to me that there has been misinformation by North here.

Since it led to the opponents being damaged, the North-South score should be -670. In the ACBL there would be no question that East-West, although damaged, made so many low-percentage bids and plays after the infraction that they do not deserve an adjustment. I understand that the standards in the rest of the world are a little higher than the ACBL's take, but it seems to me that East-West (actually, just West) made enough egregious errors to lose the right to adjustment. So, -670 to N/S, -200 to E/W.

If this were in a team match, such a result might lead to both teams losing the match! Suppose the result at the other table is 110 to E-W. Now your side loses 11 IMPs (-670 and +110) and the other team loses 7 IMPs (-200 and -110), all on the same board! If both teams "lose" the match, or a definitive, balancing victory point margin is required, I think the Laws say that you take the two different IMP results and average them. So your side would lose 9 IMPs on the board (assuming my ruliing is correct).

The difference in online play is that if the question about the double was asked in public, South should inform East privately that the explanation is wrong. But normally online, the player who doubled would give the explanation. It's a very different atmosphere, and occasionally I have asked both opponents separately what they understand a bid to mean.

[the hog]

Great result seeing that N-S are in the refrigerator for 6C.

EW keep their score- they got -200 due to bad play. NS get -670, due to the mis explanation and a warning that they better know their system in future.

[Azzkikr]

Here is my opinion on this matter... (take it as you will)...

online bridge is alot different from RL bridge(unless your playing behind screnes) So as such, the contract should be alterted to 3D* for all concerned not just N/S. Its simply someone has made an infraction. it doesnt matter how badly they played this hand in 3H they should be playing in 3D*. They might have been thinking we should be playing in 3D* and got distracted at the play.

The reason this is is that 1) when you want to know about a bid you can click on the call you want clarification on 2) you can send a message to the opponents and get the clarification. The thing is, is that the person making the bid should be explaining and since that online you can do that and not give your partner any unauthorised information, this is the way it should be done and then there will be less missleading explanations and a better enviroment from which players can base there bids and directors can make their rulings.

Just my 2 cents on the topic.

[luis]

It's hard to rule when neither side is playing bridge.
NS have an ice-cold 6c, south makes a completely insane double or 3d and yet another crazy double of 3h then north assuming the double was "optional" makes an irrational pass of 3dx.
EW bids are also very strange and the play in 3hx should have been extremely poor.

There was missinformation because north said the double was penalty when it was "optional". There was damage, east chanced to pull 3dx because north said that south had a penalty pass.

I'd rule the following:
3dx -690 for NS as the director ruled
-200 for EW for not playing bridge in 3hx
A procedural penalty on NS

And I'd take something for my stomach. Argh!

[helium]

HI ALL:)
is that possible luis?
can u give e/w-200 for poor play in 3 ♥?
i think the should ceep there lusy score too but what do the laws say in this case?

kenneth

[mr1303]

Did you have a specific agreement as to whether the double was optional, or was it an undiscussed situation, whereby you assumed that double in this situation was optional, and your partner assumed it was 100% penalty?

It seems to me like just poor bridge to me, and I'd leave the score as it stands, UNLESS there is prior agreement that double is optional in this situation.

However, having said all that, the director made a ruling, so the director is 100% right

[luis]

mr1303, on Mar 8 2004, 07:50 PM, said:

Did you have a specific agreement as to whether the double was optional, or was it an undiscussed situation, whereby you assumed that double in this situation was optional, and your partner assumed it was 100% penalty?

It seems to me like just poor bridge to me, and I'd leave the score as it stands, UNLESS there is prior agreement that double is optional in this situation.

However, having said all that, the director made a ruling, so the director is 100% right

Well I'm sure that dbl was optional even if south swears by his life that it's not.
I agree that an optional double is one of the worst bids of the century but a penalty double would be just inpossible with that hand.

[Free]

luis, on Mar 8 2004, 09:37 PM, said:

It's hard to rule when neither side is playing bridge.
NS have an ice-cold 6c, south makes a completely insane double or 3d and yet another crazy double of 3h then north assuming the double was "optional" makes an irrational pass of 3dx.
EW bids are also very strange and the play in 3hx should have been extremely poor.

~snip~

And I'd take something for my stomach. Argh!

Hi Luis,

I think you misread some things... North passes because he thinks it's a penalty double, while South thinks his dbl is optional. So imo NS is still playing some kind of bridge, but they misunderstood their agreements.

And I can asure you, if my partner considers my Dbl as optional, we'll find 6♣ or 6♠ without much troubles. To bad he was tired after 80 games (marathon of 100 deals)...

[McBruce]

Am I missing something? 3♦ vulnerable making is 670, not 690:

20 x 3 for tricks, another 60 because it is doubled = 120
50 for making a doubled contract
500 for a vulnerable game

The consensus here seems to be that EW eat their score, NS get -670 (sometimes misquoted as 690). My opinion is that an additional procedural penalty to N/S is quite harsh. PPs should be for failure to follow correct procedure, not for a simple case of forgetting your agreements. (Don't forget, South followed correct procedure when his bid was misexplained, he said nothing, played the hand, then called the Director.) We've already rolled back +980 or +920 to -670, that's 17 IMPs difference. Adding a PP is what is known in American football as "piling on."

[inquiry]

Dbl is insanity, do you really want to play in 3♦ doubled when you partner has 4♦ and 5♠'s? The answer is no. What is forcing, 4♣? 4♦? Bid that. As far as EW complaint about mis-information, running can't be right. This looks like an attempt to win in committee, 3♥ on 4 to the Q is indeed. I think justice was served when EW went down, and when NS missed a laydown 6♣'s. I don't see any dramatic need to for anything else... especially a procedural penatly. Bad bridge is punishment enough..

[the hog]

"And I can asure you, if my partner considers my Dbl as optional, we'll find 6♣ or 6♠ without much troubles. To bad he was tired after 80 games (marathon of 100 deals)... "

Absolute nonsense! If North thinks you have an optional X, then he has a 100% clear cut pass. What do you want him to bid with a 5224 shape and two bullets? Perhaps what you mean is that North is expected to pass with Ds. In this case this is not an "optional" double. Even if North has Ds, why on earth would you make a x with the south hand?

[helium]

McBruce, on Mar 8 2004, 04:42 PM, said:

Am I missing something? 3♦ vulnerable making is 670, not 690:

20 x 3 for tricks, another 60 because it is doubled = 120
50 for making a doubled contract
500 for a vulnerable game

The consensus here seems to be that EW eat their score, NS get -670 (sometimes misquoted as 690). My opinion is that an additional procedural penalty to N/S is quite harsh. PPs should be for failure to follow correct procedure, not for a simple case of forgetting your agreements. (Don't forget, South followed correct procedure when his bid was misexplained, he said nothing, played the hand, then called the Director.) We've already rolled back +980 or +920 to -670, that's 17 IMPs difference. Adding a PP is what is known in American football as "piling on."

sometimes misquoeted?
only see 1 time and that was in luis post. and i think u know that he can the score for most contract and im sure its a typeerror.

[inquiry]

helium, on Mar 8 2004, 07:01 PM, said:

only see 1 time and that was in luis post. and i think u know that he can the score for most contract and im sure its a typeerror.

Actually, just to make sure you can see it... go to the first post in this thread by FREE. At the bottom of his post, is a section header that says: Resuts (hidden), followed by a big blank space. This really isn't blank, but contains a long paragraph, also with the 690 number in it. To read that section, take your mouse, push the left button, and drag it over the blank space... magically the hidden text appears.

Ben

[helium]

ohhhh sry dint know this thx ben

[Frosty]

Call me simple, but I understood that in online bridge, (where we often play with a partner with whom we are only vaguely acquainted), that bid inquiries were best directed to and answered by the bidder.

Free doesn't say if his partnership is a familiar one, but E/W certainly had the opportunity to ask both N and S for an explanation of the double. N/S are obviously not on the same wavelength - not an uncommon situation in online bridge - and have likely missed a slam.

I think there may be a tendency to adjust for adjustment sake ..... to flex one's bridge-knowledge muscles without any real need. E/W screwed up and N/S screwed up - neither pair benefited and both pair had ample opportunity to bid and/or ask questions more effectively. I think they all should live with the results as they played out rather than manufacturing an artificial result via adjustment.

Frosty/Jan

[the hog]

Free specifically said this is face to face bridge.