[Adobe BC]

---

ACBL, matchpoints. The 2N call was made after about a 2 minute hesitation. It was alerted and explained (upon request) as a lebensohlesqe puppet to 3♣. The double was made after at least a 30 second hesitation. North has over 2000 masterpoints, South as somewhat less than 500, and EW have at least 1600 each. After play was complete, West stated to the director that he did not believe that the South hand justified the 4♣ call. South stated that he believed his bid showed the minors, but the explanation given was correct according to their convention card. The table result was down one. Both 3♣ and 3♠ make, double-dummy. Do you adjust the score?

[aguahombre]

Regardless of the other-world agreement (written on their card even?), the question to ask is of South. We already know he cannot legally have heard North's explanation of 2NT; we must assume that South interprets the double by North in the context of what South's 2NT bid was intended to mean.

So, "If you thought partner knew 2NT was a minor-suit takeout, what would double by him show?"

South is allowed to look at his hand to answer that and to assume the opponents have a nine-card fit. If South answers that it is penalty, then his removal to 4C is probably adjustable based on UI. But, the double cannot be penalty. If it is N/S's hand they would try 3NT or some other game. This leaves a responsivish double asking South to choose the longer minor fit.

Therefore, 4C stands.

[mrdct]

I don't think the slow 2NT by South or the slow double by North really suggest anything in particular, so I think the only UI of relevance is North's suggestion that 2NT was "lebensohlesque". As aquahombre has pointed out, South is obliged to bid as if partner had confidently described 2NT as "both minors", in which case perhaps 3NT would be the indicated bid with equal length in the minors. It appears to me that South may have taken advantage of the UI, but to his own detriment as a 3NT bid would've lead to the superior 4♦ contract in all likelihood.

It is important that the TD should try to ascertain what the North-South agreements are so he can determine if this is a misbid or misexplanation case. He also needs to quiz South on why he chose to bid 4♣. The other thing the TD should do is ask West if he would've still bid 3♠ if 2NT was described as "both minors".

Assuming misexplanation here, West was denied the chance to cue-raise rather than direct raise, so depending on how East-West would differentiate between 3♣ and 3♦ that may well have lead to quite a different auction.

Another way of looking at this is to pretend there are screens. South would've told West that 2NT was "both minors" so a 3♦ cue raise looks quite likely. On the other side of the screen where North tells East that 2NT is "lebsensohlesque", 3♦ now looks natural and forcing so North may well keep quite, in which case I guess East may sign-off in 3♠ with his dodgey stiff ♣K, but East does have a pretty good weak two and could easily envisage Kxx, AKQx xx xxxx in partner's hand so may pull out a 3♥ bid or a 4♠ bid some of the time.

I voted "no adjustment" but mainly focussed on the UI issues and not the misexplanation issues. I now think that had East-West been in possession on the correct explanation of 2NT as "both minors" but North not in possession of that information, they have a reasonable chance of getting to 3♠ but will also kick-on the 4♠ some of the time. I'm going to look at a weighted ruling of 3♠E= 60% and 4♠E-1 40%, but if that gives EW an inferior outcome to beating 4♣ I'll revert to the table result.

[campboy]

Why would you not adjust? Does North's hesitation suggest 4♣ over pass? Is pass an LA? Were E/W damaged? All seem clear to me.

I don't see any reason to suppose that North's double would be takeout after 2NT showing the minors. It would be bizarre to play it that way -- though admittedly both interpretations of the 2NT bid are off the wall anyway -- and South, when asked to justify his 4♣ bid, didn't suggest that double might have been takeout.

[aguahombre]

campboy, on 2011-August-15, 01:41, said:

-- and South, when asked to justify his 4♣ bid, didn't suggest that double might have been takeout.

You apparently know something not posted. In the OP, South only explains what he believed 2NT meant, and was not asked anything else.

[iviehoff]

mrdct, on 2011-August-14, 22:03, said:

South is obliged to bid as if partner had confidently described 2NT as "both minors", in which case perhaps 3NT would be the indicated bid with equal length in the minors... I now think that had East-West been in possession on the correct explanation of 2NT as "both minors"

For me the evidence seems already sufficient to rule misbid rather than misexplanation.

Given South is in a fantasy-land thinking his 2N means the minors, I suspect he has no secure understanding of what double from partner means in such a fantasy. I can persuade myself it might be taken as not pure takeout. Given South has Aces and tenaces, ie defence, I think pass is a LA.

[campboy]

aguahombre, on 2011-August-15, 04:59, said:

You apparently know something not posted. In the OP, South only explains what he believed 2NT meant, and was not asked anything else.

Sorry, I somehow got the impression that South's comments were in response to West's; rereading the OP I see I was mistaken. Certainly the TD should be asking South why he bid 4♣. OP: did some such question get asked?

[Bbradley62]

mrdct, on 2011-August-14, 22:03, said:

I'm going to look at a weighted ruling of 3♠E= 60% and 4♠E-1 40%, but if that gives EW an inferior outcome to beating 4♣ I'll revert to the table result.

In ACBL?

[FrancesHinden]

campboy, on 2011-August-15, 01:41, said:

Why would you not adjust? Does North's hesitation suggest 4♣ over pass? Is pass an LA? Were E/W damaged? All seem clear to me.

I don't see any reason to suppose that North's double would be takeout after 2NT showing the minors. It would be bizarre to play it that way -- though admittedly both interpretations of the 2NT bid are off the wall anyway -- and South, when asked to justify his 4♣ bid, didn't suggest that double might have been takeout.

I've played against more pairs playing the 2NT overcall as 'lebensohl' i.e. a light 3m overcall than I have playing it as minors. The first time it came up I genuinely believed responder had got confused with lebensohl in response to a take-out double, but no, that's exactly what they played. It has some (not much) merit.

[blackshoe]

Lebensohl=hammer. Opening bid=nail.

[bluejak]

I think the idea that double cannot be penalties is based on confused modern thinking. Of course it can be penalties, and may even be the best way to play it. The idea that with a penalty double partner would prefer to go one off in 3NT rather than take opponents one or two off in 3♠ is curious.

There also seems an idea that it cannot be for the minors, when people are playing it as Lebensohl-ish. When ruling you are interested in what the pair plays, not what you personally think is rational or best or whatever.

[mycroft]

If "double can't be penalties", then West's raise could be on any 3 spades - maybe two if he's feeling frisky. East's hand could be much worse - white on red 2♠? Some people would open that hand 3♠ (especially without the ♣K) and would open the hand 2♠ with QJ9 instead of AQ9 - or with AQ9xx instead of sixth - or even both. Still think North can't have a penalty hand?

While it's best theoretically to have many many "not for penalty" doubles, an effective counter-strategy is "bid like you're going for 8 or 11 into game because most pairs can only rarely take you." But don't do it past the 3 level!

[Trecar]

For me the evidence seems already sufficient to rule misbid rather than misexplanationte'

This together with Aquahombre's first response seems to provide a clearcut reason for not adjusting

[lamford]

Trecar, on 2011-August-28, 15:29, said:

For me the evidence seems already sufficient to rule misbid rather than misexplanationte'

I do not think that the issue is that; we need to ask if South used the UI of a lack of an alert to decide that his partner was expecting him to have a more-balanced hand? There is presumably no agreement over the meaning of double, but even if it is "co-operative", South should pass, as he has both minor suit aces, which is far better for defence than it might be. It seems unlikely that North-South can show that double was takeout, but I would not give a PP, as they do not appear to be that experienced.

[Cyberyeti]

S has clear cut UI.

What does his partner's X mean ?

I'd suggest penalty, what is partner supposed to do with say QJ10x, AKxxx, xx, xx ? Opps can see the vul and might easily be 6:2 or 5:3 in the spade suit or on a really bad day 5:2 if they're both at it.

Did S consider he was minimum or maximum for 2N ? If anything other than rock bottom minimum, I'd suggest he should be passing the double of 3♠ without the slightest thought as he has 2 nice looking bullets.