[sathyab]

gnasher, on 2011-December-26, 04:00, said:

I don't think Justin is suggesting treating K9 A742 K73 KJ94 as a "light takeout" double. Or at least I hope he's not.

Regarding the poll on Bridgewinners, you definitely can't act once partner has shown interest.
Do you have UI? Yes.
Does the UI suggest double over pass? Yes.
Is pass a logical alternative? Yes.
So double is illegal.

Regarding the question of whether you should act in an unpolluted auction, your argument seems to be "On this deal, if I'd passed we'd have lost the board; therefore it's right to act." A single deal is a single data point; the fact that you got lucky (very lucky, looking at the two hands) this time doesn't make it right to double.

"You definitely can't act once partner has shown interest" ? About 40% of the people who answered the poll on bridgewinners.com disagree with you, as they said they would double with the given hand regardless of UI. 53% said they'd pass only because of UI. In fact only about four people said they'd always pass 3♣.

But to your credit you actually did comprehend my argument. "On this deal if I passed, we'd lose the board, so I must do something expedient". On the actual deal posted on bridgewinners.com, we could tie the board by passing partner's 3♠, bidding 3nt over 3♠ involved judging that 3nt would be harder for the current opposition than 3♠ and they proved me right. But that's not the point though. Whether you act over 3♣ or not, is. If you judge that defending 3♣ undoubled for +100 will most likely lose the board, then deciding to act over 3♣ is an easy decision. While acting over 3♣ is by no means guaranteed to do anything good, it's no worse than the alternative of passing over 3♣ which practically guarantees losing the board.

[aguahombre]

sathyab, on 2011-December-26, 10:45, said:

About 40% of the people who answered the poll on bridgewinners.com disagree with you, as they said they would double with the given hand regardless of UI. 53% said they'd pass only because of UI. In fact only about four people said they'd always pass 3♣.

A bit misleading, since the poll only included "pass only because of UI" and two options for double. The four people who said they'd always pass 3♣ took the trouble to say that, despite not being given that option.

Wonder what a real poll with "pass" fully included would have shown.

[sathyab]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-26, 11:05, said:

A bit misleading, since the poll only included "pass only because of UI" and two options for double. The four people who said they'd always pass 3♣ took the trouble to say that, despite not being given that option.

Wonder what a real poll with "pass" fully included would have shown.

That I should have included "Always pass" as an option occurred to me only after I saw the comments from people who said they'd always pass. Unfortunately bridgewinners.com Polls can not be edited, I believe. While "Pass always" might have attracted some votes it would not cut into the segment that voted to "double in spite of the UI" as they had a clear choice. My guess is that "Pass only because of UI" vote might have been split among those who would "Pass Always" and those who "Pass only because of UI" in some proportion.

[aguahombre]

I believe in the effect of how polls are constructed upon the people being polled. Perhaps, the emphasis on Double might have persuaded a portion against their inclination to Pass, or against voting at all.

[Phil]

JLOGIC, on 2011-December-26, 01:53, said:

I probably should not have assumed, but I think I know who this board was played against if it was in the Reisinger.

I think Sathya played this in the first weekend BAM.

[gnasher]

sathyab, on 2011-December-26, 10:45, said:

"You definitely can't act once partner has shown interest" ? About 40% of the people who answered the poll on bridgewinners.com disagree with you, as they said they would double with the given hand regardless of UI. 53% said they'd pass only because of UI. In fact only about four people said they'd always pass 3♣.

From Law 16: "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it."

Your poll tells us that 14% of pollees would select pass. It doesn't tell us how many would give serious consideration to pass, except that it's more than 14%.

14% is, I expect you'll agree, at least as many as "some". Are you arguing that pass would not be "seriously considered" by "a significant proportion" of your peers?

Quote

But to your credit you actually did comprehend my argument. "On this deal if I passed, we'd lose the board, so I must do something expedient". On the actual deal posted on bridgewinners.com, we could tie the board by passing partner's 3♠, bidding 3nt over 3♠ involved judging that 3nt would be harder for the current opposition than 3♠ and they proved me right. But that's not the point though. Whether you act over 3♣ or not, is. If you judge that defending 3♣ undoubled for +100 will most likely lose the board, then deciding to act over 3♣ is an easy decision. While acting over 3♣ is by no means guaranteed to do anything good, it's no worse than the alternative of passing over 3♣ which practically guarantees losing the board.

I don't understand how you could know that you'd lose the board, or even why you expected to. You had a defensive hand, and your opponents were playing at the three level in your best suit. That doesn't sound like a reason to panic.

I think you should be especially reluctant to take this sort of action at BAM, where you have teammates. In teams events of any sort, I think the right approach is to assume that teammates will have done something sensible, so there's no need for us to do anything extravagant in order to win. I wouldn't start by assuming that teammates have been outbid.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2011-December-26, 14:30

[cherdano]

Sathya, let me be a litle bit more direct than Andy. I know you are trying to do the right thing - otherwise you wouldn't have posted this, but I think you are still misjudging the situation.

But if someone had told me the facts of what happened without names, I would have been upset if the TD and the committee didn't impose a PP for abusing UI.

I can promise you that had you set up a poll on these forums, a huge majority would have passed throughout with your 2434 hand. The reason is very simple - it doesn't look like they are making 3♣, and it doesn't seem likely that we will be making anything at the 3-level given that partner couldn't act. (That's why we require takeout shape for takeout doubles at the 3-level in the first place.)

Ok, you may or may not believe me, but there is no question that passing is a logical alternative. Even in your incorrectly set up poll (which did not offer an option for what I believe to be the majority opinion) 14% would pass under the circumstances. Additionally, there is no question that you have UI. There is also no question that the UI suggest acting over passing. Hence you cannot act. It's really not close.

I hope it is clear that this isn't meant as an attack on your ethics - again, from what you posted, and from how I know you in real life I am very convinced that you are trying to do the right thing. But I think your judgment (partly on the merits of acting, but more importantly on the question whether acting is without alternative) here is way off the mark.

[sathyab]

cherdano, on 2011-December-26, 16:50, said:

Sathya, let me be a litle bit more direct than Andy. I know you are trying to do the right thing - otherwise you wouldn't have posted this, but I think you are still misjudging the situation.

But if someone had told me the facts of what happened without names, I would have been upset if the TD and the committee didn't impose a PP for abusing UI.

I can promise you that had you set up a poll on these forums, a huge majority would have passed throughout with your 2434 hand. The reason is very simple - it doesn't look like they are making 3♣, and it doesn't seem likely that we will be making anything at the 3-level given that partner couldn't act. (That's why we require takeout shape for takeout doubles at the 3-level in the first place.)

Ok, you may or may not believe me, but there is no question that passing is a logical alternative. Even in your incorrectly set up poll (which did not offer an option for what I believe to be the majority opinion) 14% would pass under the circumstances. Additionally, there is no question that you have UI. There is also no question that the UI suggest acting over passing. Hence you cannot act. It's really not close.

I hope it is clear that this isn't meant as an attack on your ethics - again, from what you posted, and from how I know you in real life I am very convinced that you are trying to do the right thing. But I think your judgment (partly on the merits of acting, but more importantly on the question whether acting is without alternative) here is way off the mark.

I find it interesting that both You and Andy keep looking at the 14% of people who said they would pass, rather than an overwhelming majority who either said they'd double in spite of the UI or pass only because of the UI. (Yes, aquahombre did point out quite rightly, that had "Pass Always been offered as an a alternative, it might have changed the break-up a bit, not sure how much). So if for a moment we take the UI out of the picture, I think it's fair to say that a lot more people who answered the bridgewinners.com poll would act over 3♣ rather than pass.

I have no idea what gives you the confidence to promise anyone that a huge majority would pass 3♣ if a Poll were set up here. And honestly if they did it doesn't bother me one bit.

Recaps of National events are posted on-line. This is from Open-BAM 1st final brd#28. Look up the results and come to your own conclusions. In the four sections that played in the event, you will notice that there are a few scores of 50 and 100 here and there, but a lot more 140's, 150's and 300's. So chances are you would lose the board. And we did LOSE the board once the committee overturned the director's ruling, as our counterparts scored up 140 in 3♠. You would lose the board to a lot more opponents than tie let alone win.

According to DF, our side can make 3♥, 3♠, 2nt played bu the hand with stiff ♣, 3nt played by the hand with ♣KJ94 and their side can make 1♣. Among the part scores our side can make, it's all fairly straightforward play, there's no double-dummy element involved at all. 3nt was harder, needed help from defense, which I did anticipate and they delivered, and still needed careful, but not spectacular play.

I find the arguments for passing 3♣ unconvincing. Just because your opponents are playing in a contract where you have good enough defense to probably beat it two tricks non-vulnerable isn't good enough to assume that you're in a position of reasonable equity. Once you know that the auction would almost certainly not go the same way at the other table, you have to seriously think about the possibility of +100 being a losing score.

Yes, take-out shape is required for take-out at any level. But what you and your partner need here is to realize is that hand with the shape is not in the balancing chair. It doesn't have enough strength to pre-balance at the three-level and that therefore the balancing action is an action double, not a take out double and you have to act accordingly.

[JLOGIC]

Xing is ridic, still havent been to bridge winners but I suspect many are trying to double for penalty.

[Phil]

sathyab, on 2011-December-26, 20:34, said:

Yes, take-out shape is required for take-out at any level. But what you and your partner need here is to realize is that hand with the shape is not in the balancing chair. It doesn't have enough strength to pre-balance at the three-level and that therefore the balancing action is an action double, not a take out double and you have to act accordingly.

I would take an immediate double of 2N as takeout, and a delayed double of 3♣ as takeout as well. As I've already stated, metarules indicate the immediate auction is stronger than the first. When you gave me this hand three weeks I did not think a delayed double was penalty, and I do not know.

Finding a parallel auction isn't easy. About the only one I can sensibly come up with is

(1♥) - pass - (3♣ / 3♦) (Bergen Mixed)

One could argue that a direct double (assuming it isn't lead directing) is a stronger takeout than a delayed double of 3♥. I see little reason why the delayed double should be penalty. In the Bergen auction, opener's side has a nine card fit. In your auction, they have a minimum of an eight card fit, however in my experience, opener will have six clubs most of the time. When I played precision the actual West hand is a 1♦ opener.

Should partner figure out that you are making a penalty double looking at a stiff club? Maybe, but by the same token, why can't the 2N bidder have five trump and a flat hand? I am uncomfortable when I have to figure out the meaning of a bid looking at my own hand.

I do not consider a NAMYATS opening to be a parallel sequence. I do not see the need to go venturing out to the four level and differentiate between a light takeout and a sound takeout. Therefore, it makes perfect sense, and I think standard NAMYATS defense defines a delayed double as penalty.

I finally had a chance to look at Board 28. Here's a link to the hand record: BAM Final.

Frankly, I think you are fixed over 3♣. Partner doesn't have a call over 3♣. He doesn't even have a hitch. Your opponent took the right view in spades to make 140 or the defense lose its way (low club - 9, Q...Ace?). Also - how did they even get to spades. South has an interesting call over a 1♠ overcall, but I can see them landing in hearts more often.

[sathyab]

Phil, on 2011-December-27, 00:38, said:

I would take an immediate double of 2N as takeout, and a delayed double of 3♣ as takeout as well. As I've already stated, metarules indicate the immediate auction is stronger than the first. When you gave me this hand three weeks I did not think a delayed double was penalty, and I do not know.

Finding a parallel auction isn't easy. About the only one I can sensibly come up with is

(1♥) - pass - (3♣ / 3♦) (Bergen Mixed)

One could argue that a direct double (assuming it isn't lead directing) is a stronger takeout than a delayed double of 3♥. I see little reason why the delayed double should be penalty. In the Bergen auction, opener's side has a nine card fit. In your auction, they have a minimum of an eight card fit, however in my experience, opener will have six clubs most of the time. When I played precision the actual West hand is a 1♦ opener.

Should partner figure out that you are making a penalty double looking at a stiff club? Maybe, but by the same token, why can't the 2N bidder have five trump and a flat hand? I am uncomfortable when I have to figure out the meaning of a bid looking at my own hand.

I do not consider a NAMYATS opening to be a parallel sequence. I do not see the need to go venturing out to the four level and differentiate between a light takeout and a sound takeout. Therefore, it makes perfect sense, and I think standard NAMYATS defense defines a delayed double as penalty.

I finally had a chance to look at Board 28. Here's a link to the hand record: BAM Final.

Frankly, I think you are fixed over 3♣. Partner doesn't have a call over 3♣. He doesn't even have a hitch. Your opponent took the right view in spades to make 140 or the defense lose its way (low club - 9, Q...Ace?). Also - how did they even get to spades. South has an interesting call over a 1♠ overcall, but I can see them landing in hearts more often.

How do they get to ♠s ? Easy, (1♣) -p -(p) - 1nt-(p)- 2♥ - (p)- 2♠ - (p). Or (1♣)- p- (1nt)- p - (p)- 2♠ or variants thereof. If the opponents decide that they can't stand opponents playing 2♠, they might try bidding 3♣ which explains some of the +300s for our side. Either Major makes 9 tricks, ♥s are easier I think.

I don't understand why you would insist on taking double of 3♣ as T/O of ♣s, unless T/O at the 3-level include hands that have 3 or more ♣s. If they have ten ♣s isn't it possible that bidding might have gone 4♣ by the responder ?

[FrancesHinden]

JLOGIC, on 2011-December-25, 15:20, said:

Pro tip: Play X of 2N as a light takeout, and pass then X is stronger. This lets you get in over 2N with the light takeout hand type without risking anything.

Interesting. Against transfer pre-empts (e.g. 2NT = club pre-empt or some random strong option) we play double = t/o of clubs; double - then -double = strong t/o of clubs; pass-then -double = strong balanced.
So if we were to treat 2C as a 'pre-empt' we'd do the same here (one general rule is that double of 2NT would be take-out of clubs).

But on this hand I'd pass anyway because I don't see where we are going.

[FrancesHinden]

sathyab, on 2011-December-27, 01:56, said:

How do they get to ♠s ? Easy, (1♣) -p -(p) - 1nt-(p)- 2♥ - (p)- 2♠ - (p). Or (1♣)- p- (1nt)- p - (p)- 2♠ or variants thereof. If the opponents decide that they can't stand opponents playing 2♠, they might try bidding 3♣ which explains some of the +300s for our side. Either Major makes 9 tricks, ♥s are easier I think.

I don't understand why you would insist on taking double of 3♣ as T/O of ♣s, unless T/O at the 3-level include hands that have 3 or more ♣s. If they have ten ♣s isn't it possible that bidding might have gone 4♣ by the responder ?

If you think double is penalties, and that's your partnership agreement, fine, and there'd be no adjustment. But if double is penalties, why did your partner not pass it?

[sathyab]

Phil, on 2011-December-27, 00:38, said:

I would take an immediate double of 2N as takeout, and a delayed double of 3♣ as takeout as well. As I've already stated, metarules indicate the immediate auction is stronger than the first. When you gave me this hand three weeks I did not think a delayed double was penalty, and I do not know.

Finding a parallel auction isn't easy. About the only one I can sensibly come up with is

(1♥) - pass - (3♣ / 3♦) (Bergen Mixed)

One could argue that a direct double (assuming it isn't lead directing) is a stronger takeout than a delayed double of 3♥. I see little reason why the delayed double should be penalty. In the Bergen auction, opener's side has a nine card fit. In your auction, they have a minimum of an eight card fit, however in my experience, opener will have six clubs most of the time. When I played precision the actual West hand is a 1♦ opener.

Should partner figure out that you are making a penalty double looking at a stiff club? Maybe, but by the same token, why can't the 2N bidder have five trump and a flat hand? I am uncomfortable when I have to figure out the meaning of a bid looking at my own hand.

I do not consider a NAMYATS opening to be a parallel sequence. I do not see the need to go venturing out to the four level and differentiate between a light takeout and a sound takeout. Therefore, it makes perfect sense, and I think standard NAMYATS defense defines a delayed double as penalty.

I finally had a chance to look at Board 28. Here's a link to the hand record: BAM Final.

Frankly, I think you are fixed over 3♣. Partner doesn't have a call over 3♣. He doesn't even have a hitch. Your opponent took the right view in spades to make 140 or the defense lose its way (low club - 9, Q...Ace?). Also - how did they even get to spades. South has an interesting call over a 1♠ overcall, but I can see them landing in hearts more often.

The only reason that N-S should be playing in 3M is because they had a precision-style auction like the one at our table and they had to find a playable contract for the first time at the 3-level. If you have been able to bid 2M in the auction and they tried to force you to the 3-level, you should be defending 3♣ doubled instead.

Against a precision-style 2♣ opening taking the right view of trumps in a ♠ partial shouldn't be too hard. You know that opener has only 5♣s and therefore 4-card ♠. Unless you think you can find a trump-coup against the opener your only chance is to drop the Jx off-side.

[gnasher]

sathyab, on 2011-December-26, 20:34, said:

I find it interesting that both You and Andy keep looking at the 14% of people who said they would pass

I'm considering the people who would pass, and those who would consider pass, because that's what the rules say I should consider.

[gnasher]

Sathya, I'm going to make six assertions:

(1) You received unauthorised information from your partner.

(2) The unauthorised information suggested double over pass.

(3) A significant proportion of players like you, with your agreements, would seriously consider pass.

(4) Some players like you, with your agreements, would actually pass.

(5) Given that 3 and 4 are true, pass is a logical alternative.

(6) Given that 2 and 5 are true, double is illegal under Law 16B1.

Which of these do you disagree with?

[pooltuna]

Meckwill IMP tactics DNA at BAM and I suspect normal expectation is 9 tricks in a major so I will call 3♠ as I might be playing a 43 fit instead of a 44 one.

[sathyab]

gnasher, on 2011-December-27, 15:43, said:

Sathya, I'm going to make six assertions:

(1) You received unauthorised information from your partner.

(2) The unauthorised information suggested double over pass.

(3) A significant proportion of players like you, with your agreements, would seriously consider pass.

(4) Some players like you, with your agreements, would actually pass.

(5) Given that 3 and 4 are true, pass is a logical alternative.

(6) Given that 2 and 5 are true, double is illegal under Law 16B1.

Which of these do you disagree with?

Which of these do I disagree with ? All of them. But I don't intend to elaborate on anything any more than I already have. I'll let you have the last word.

[aguahombre]

It is always good to get in the last word by telling someone they can have the last word.

[jdeegan]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-12, 19:37, said:

Call me crazy (Why not? I am.), but I choose 4C now. Guarantees the correct trump fit, and they will bid 4C anyway, so might as well. It wasn't one of the choices for the poll, because the OP isn't crazy.

I am with this guy.

For what it's worth, I am 100% with pro tips. Makes sense to me.