[VixTD]

---

Multiple teams-of-four, IMPs
1NT was 9-12
2♣ showed clubs and another suit
Double was not alerted. South thought it was for penalty, North thought it was Stayman.
Result: 2♣X(W)-4, NS+800

EW called the director at the end of play because of confusion over the meaning of the double. North was convinced their agreement was Stayman, but he couldn't prove it. South wasn't aware that penalty doubles of bids showing the suit should be alerted (give her another five years, perhaps). East said that had he been told it was penalties he would have bid 2♦.

How do you rule?

[Cyberyeti]

VixTD, on 2011-June-10, 07:07, said:

---

Multiple teams-of-four, IMPs
1NT was 9-12
2♣ showed clubs and another suit
Double was not alerted. South thought it was for penalty, North thought it was Stayman.
Result: 2♣X(W)-4, NS+800

EW called the director at the end of play because of confusion over the meaning of the double. North was convinced their agreement was Stayman, but he couldn't prove it. South wasn't aware that penalty doubles of bids showing the suit should be alerted (give her another five years, perhaps). East said that had he been told it was penalties he would have bid 2♦.

How do you rule?

So if the auction proceeds 2♦-X-P-P-P or 2♦-X-2♥-X how is E better off ?

[billw55]

VixTD, on 2011-June-10, 07:07, said:

East said that had he been told it was penalties he would have bid 2♦.

Deal, -1100.

[iviehoff]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-June-10, 07:10, said:

So if the auction proceeds 2♦-X-P-P-P or 2♦-X-2♥-X how is E better off ?

Not in those cases. E is perhaps hoping that the weighted adjustment will include some percentages of some other things too. With N not quite on the same wavelength as S, perhaps there is some percentage of that. Though I'm not giving E 100% of bidding 2D.

For the sake of making this an interesting case, I'll presume that a weighted adjustment of advantage to E is available.

S can't get this one right really. S, thinking it is penalty, fails to alert, and is thus guilty of misinformation. If S had alerted and explained it as penalty, he is also guilty of misinformation, as we will presume misinformation rather than that N misbid (though since N's hand is consistent with penalty, there is a fair chance that this wont' be detected). EW can have their cake and eat it.

[mycroft]

Yes, there is a question of what North, who doubled for Stayman, will do when 2♦X-p comes back to him. After all, unless 2♣ Stayman promises strength (which it does in one of my partnerships), not many people double for penalty with 10-12 opposite potentially nothing.

Having said that, in situations where 2♣-X *is* in fact Stayman in my games, I don't know what 1NT-2♣-X-2♦; X means. So East may have a point.

[bluejak]

The moment we are not sure what will happen, then a weighted score seems a good idea outside North America.

[blackshoe]

It seems a good idea inside North America too, if only it weren't illegal. But that's a different can of worms, for another thread and another forum.

[gnasher]

Are people suggesting that some percentage of the time North will interpret South's double of 2♦ as for takeout? We should ask if they have any agreement about such a double, but if their response is "No, but how can it be anything but penalties?", I think we should accept that.

North bid when he didn't have to, so he has promised sufficient strength to to wish to compete, and a willingness to play at the two-level opposite 9-12 without a four-card major. I don't see why people think it impossible for South to have a penalty double. In fact, the actual South hand might double 2♦ if it didn't have four spades. Turn it into J9 103 QJ974 AQ106 and a double of 2♦ would be a reasonable action.

[bluejak]

The whole principle of self-serving statements is that we do not treat them with as much weight even though we do not discard them. It is often the case that the TD feels there is doubt.

Now, if a player says "I knew that double was for penalties" it is up to the TD [or the AC] to decide how much weight to attach to such a statement. No doubt he will consider everything, such as tone of voice, corroboration from the SC, logic when player says other things, things stated by other players, and so forth.

One thing he should not do is to automatically accept a self-serving statement without question because it is from the non-offending side.

But, sure, gnasher, if you went to the table, and asked, and that you considered it a convincing answer, it is reasonable to use your determination. My experience of these situations is the better and especially more scientific players know what they are doing, lesser players and less scientific players often do not.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2011-June-12, 08:29, said:

The whole principle of self-serving statements is that we do not treat them with as much weight even though we do not discard them. It is often the case that the TD feels there is doubt.

Now, if a player says "I knew that double was for penalties" it is up to the TD [or the AC] to decide how much weight to attach to such a statement. No doubt he will consider everything, such as tone of voice, corroboration from the SC, logic when player says other things, things stated by other players, and so forth.

One thing he should not do is to automatically accept a self-serving statement without question because it is from the non-offending side.

But, sure, gnasher, if you went to the table, and asked, and that you considered it a convincing answer, it is reasonable to use your determination. My experience of these situations is the better and especially more scientific players know what they are doing, lesser players and less scientific players often do not.

What I meant was that to play that double as takeout is so unusual that we should assume North would never interpret it that way. Giving NS some percentage of North's interpreting the double as takeout is like giving them some percentage of South's jumping to 5NT. I would have thought that this would apply even more at the lower levels of the game.

You started an earlier post with "The moment we are not sure what will happen..." My point is that for this part of the auction we *are* sure what would happen.

[bluejak]

Fair enough. And are we sure he will double? Yes, I agree, players do not really double here for takeout. Some just do not double.

[gnasher]

North is in a Stayman auction, but South is in a penalising-opponents auction. Whilst "nobody" plays the double of 2♦ as takeout in the Stayman sequence, it's not unheard of to play takeout doubles in the penalising-opponents auction (no, me neither). So, depending on who NS were, it mght be reasonable to rule that sometimes South would pass.

[campboy]

gnasher, on 2011-June-14, 09:27, said:

North is in a Stayman auction, but South is in a penalising-opponents auction. Whilst "nobody" plays the double of 2♦ as takeout in the Stayman sequence, it's not unheard of to play takeout doubles in the penalising-opponents auction (no, me neither). So, depending on who NS were, it mght be reasonable to rule that sometimes South would pass.

There are some players for whom double is takeout even in some penalising auctions, but in my experience almost all such players would play 1NT (2♣) dbl as takeout anyway. So I would agree that this South is unlikely to think 1NT (2♣) dbl (2♦) dbl is takeout.

[gnasher]

campboy, on 2011-June-14, 10:54, said:

There are some players for whom double is takeout even in some penalising auctions, but in my experience almost all such players would play 1NT (2♣) dbl as takeout anyway. So I would agree that this South is unlikely to think 1NT (2♣) dbl (2♦) dbl is takeout.

Yes, that was a silly suggestion of mine - it would be very odd to play the double of 2♣ as penalties, but the double of 2♦ as takeout.