[lamford]

---

IMPs, Lead ace of hearts, table result EW+800.

West on this hand was our friend the Secretary Bird, and it was the third or fourth time the director was called to his table here in Pula, and he was still smarting over not getting a ruling in his favour on another board. Before North raised to 3S he asked West whether they played Lebensohl over doubles of weak twos, and SB pleaded the fifth amendment and declined to answer, as the question related to a future bid, not one that had been made. North also wanted to know what a double of a raise to 3S would be, and again SB declined to answer for the same reasons. North raised to 3S anyway, and East's thin responsive double without four hearts ended the auction, for +800 to E/W with no game on. North was unhappy at the lack of information provided by SB. How would you rule? The E-W convention card was silent on both matters, although it was filled out in far more detail than the average CC here.

[aguahombre]

How convenient that SB doesn't want to give future predictions, but demands them from the opponents on the previous thread.

[blackshoe]

Well, notwithstanding which interpretation of law we should follow, SB can't have it both ways.

[gnasher]

Unless there's a regulation that requires West to answer, North isn't entitled to answers to either question. North might have got part of his answer by asking about the minimum strength for a double, because this might have helped him to guess whether the opponents play Lebensohl.

North's asking a question about the opponents' potential future auction is an irregularity. West drew attention to this by declining to answer. Therefore all four players have committed an offence by not calling the director at the time.

[barmar]

I assume EW don't have a convention card that contains the information requested?

[nige1]

barmar, on 2013-September-15, 17:40, said:

I assume EW don't have a convention card that contains the information requested?

Few SCs cater for all common situations. IMO, an SC should contain information about common Lebensohl and responsive doubles like this. When attention is drawn to such deficiencies, most directors suggest that they be remedied, but some "offenders" do nothing about it, and few directors check up.

As a practical example, in this case, when called to the table, would Barmar impose a PP on SB for an incomplete SC?

[aguahombre]

As a side note..on the given hand it didn't matter whether the double of 3s would have been responsive or penalty, So the opponents were just wasting everyone's time. Including ours.

They could see that it was a shabby Responsive Double by the time the 800 number was being scored up, and that there could not be any damage ---everyone could get on with life.

And now, a footnote: I would have bid 3S also as North, but I wouldn't have first clarified for everyone that I was concerned about a penalty double, just to make sure it happened.

[barmar]

nige1, on 2013-September-15, 19:59, said:

Few SCs cater for all common situations. IMO, SCs should contain information about common Lebensohl and responsive doubles like this.

The oft-derided ACBL convention card has a simple checkbox for Lebensohl over doubles of weak 2.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-15, 21:10, said:

As a side note..on the given hand it didn't matter whether the double of 3s would have been responsive or penalty, So the opponents were just wasting everyone's time. Including ours.

If North had known that East could make a responsive double, he would not have raised, as this was the most likely call to be chosen, because he was looking at four hearts. If double were penalties, East would not have doubled.

[aguahombre]

lamford, on 2013-September-16, 11:28, said:

If North had known that East could make a responsive double, he would not have raised, as this was the most likely call to be chosen, because he was looking at four hearts. If double were penalties, East would not have doubled.

I don't understand your point. If double were penalty, North would be worried about a double by East holding a penalty double. If double were responsive, East would double with a responsive double ---and it might get left in. Either way, his knowledge beforehand about what the double would mean won't help North; but his obvious expression of worry might well help E/W.

Maybe, you were really saying North wants to know whether East can double at all ---a quick glance at his bidding box will give you that clue.

A Responsive Double after Pard's takeout double is usually directionless with values. West, with a pretty much directionless hand himself, left it in. East's choice to use the Responsive double with a directionless hand but questionable values might well have been influenced by North's big mouth. This was AI to be used at East's own risk, of course.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-16, 15:39, said:

I don't understand your point. If double were penalty, North would be worried about a double by East holding a penalty double. If double were responsive, East would double with a responsive double ---and it might get left in. Either way, his knowledge beforehand about what the double would mean won't help North; but his obvious expression of worry might well help E/W.

Maybe, you were really saying North wants to know whether East can double at all ---a quick glance at his bidding box will give you that clue.

A Responsive Double after Pard's takeout double is usually directionless with values. West, with a pretty much directionless hand himself, left it in. East's choice to use the Responsive double with a directionless hand but questionable values might well have been influenced by North's big mouth. This was AI to be used at East's own risk, of course.

The point is that from North's point of view, East is more likely to hold a responsive double than a penalty double. His most likely shape is 2-3-4-4 and around an eight count. If double would be penalties, North should raise. If double would be responsive, North should pass, as he knows a responsive double will leave West nowhere to go.

[aguahombre]

lamford, on 2013-September-16, 16:18, said:

The point is that from North's point of view, East is more likely to hold a responsive double than a penalty double. His most likely shape is 2-3-4-4 and around an eight count. If double would be penalties, North should raise. If double would be responsive, North should pass, as he knows a responsive double will leave West nowhere to go.

You left out the ending. "A responsive double will leave West nowhere to go, so he will go nowhere." Result: doubled undertricks.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-16, 16:39, said:

You left out the ending. "A responsive double will leave West nowhere to go, so he will go nowhere." Result: doubled undertricks.

You left out the middle. If double of 3S is penalties East will pass. Result undoubled contract.

[Cyberyeti]

On most convention cards, there is a spot for defence to weak 2s, if it just says "ToX" rather than "ToX + lebensohl" as is frequently seen on cards in the UK, I think you have a case for assuming they don't play it (particularly if there's nothing in the "other conventions" section like "2N rarely to play" or "Lebensohl in many situations"). I'd be interested to see that tested in an appeal.

That said, what the double would mean is a good question, but one to which you're not entitled to an answer I believe as the law stands.

[aguahombre]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-September-17, 17:18, said:

On most convention cards, there is a spot for defence to weak 2s, if it just says "ToX" rather than "ToX + lebensohl" as is frequently seen on cards in the UK, I think you have a case for assuming they don't play it (particularly if there's nothing in the "other conventions" section like "2N rarely to play" or "Lebensohl in many situations"). I'd be interested to see that tested in an appeal.

I would be interested to see what damage would be alledged in an appeal where a properly alerted 2NT bid which is conventional was not marked on a piece of paper.

An opening 2NT bid for which the opponents did not get a chance to prepare would be the exception.

[Cyberyeti]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-17, 18:17, said:

I would be interested to see what damage would be alledged in an appeal where a properly alerted 2NT bid which is conventional was not marked on a piece of paper.

An opening 2NT bid for which the opponents did not get a chance to prepare would be the exception.

It's nothing to do with that, it's the "if I thought you were playing Lebensohl I'd have bounced the weak 2 up to 3" type situation.