[MickyB]

Auction -

1H-X-XX-P
P-1S-X-AP

The double is described as penalties, but turns out to be 2065. Opener is 4513. Declarer believes he may have taken more tricks if told the double was for takeout.

Potentially relevant facts -

They are a regular partnership
Their convention card is silent on the meaning of the double, but explains the redouble as "9+, penalty interest"
They don't play pass/double inversion anywhere
Opener - the more experienced player in the partnership - is certain that double was for penalties; responder is unsure.

Do you rule misbid or misexplanation?

[FrancesHinden]

Misexplanation (in the absence of evidence to the contrary...)

[MickyB]

FrancesHinden, on 2014-September-13, 01:58, said:

Misexplanation (in the absence of evidence to the contrary...)

I think it's fairly clear from the facts I listed, and from general bridge knowledge, that misbid is more likely than misexplanation, do you not agree? I was just unsure whether it was *sufficiently* more likely...

[Vampyr]

MickyB, on 2014-September-13, 02:02, said:

I think it's fairly clear from the facts I listed, and from general bridge knowledge, that misbid is more likely than misexplanation

I don't see why. And I'm not sure about the "general bridge knowledge", because a lot of people play this double as takeout

[paulg]

MickyB, on 2014-September-13, 02:02, said:

I think it's fairly clear from the facts I listed, and from general bridge knowledge, that misbid is more likely than misexplanation, do you not agree?

I don't agree. Even some of the Scottish players who have the mantra of "first double values, second double takeout, third double penalty" play this as penalties, as I've discovered afterwards in irregular partnerships with them. I think lack of precise agreement is pretty common so would rule MI.

[lamford]

MickyB, on 2014-September-13, 02:02, said:

I think it's fairly clear from the facts I listed, and from general bridge knowledge, that misbid is more likely than misexplanation, do you not agree? I was just unsure whether it was *sufficiently* more likely...

I think Frances is right. The Law says: "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary." "is to presume" means that the director does not weigh up the likelihood. He just rules Mistaken Explanation. If you think there is evidence to the contrary, then you rule according to that evidence.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2014-September-13, 04:01, said:

I think Frances is right.

So do I. Agree with the rest of what you said, too.

[wanoff]

What part of "Penalty interest" are people not understanding ?
I'd just pass 1♠ and bid something later on.

[Vampyr]

wanoff, on 2014-September-13, 06:34, said:

What part of "Penalty interest" are people not understanding ?
I'd just pass 1♠ and bid something later on.

"Penalty interest" does not mean "I wish to penalise whatever they bid next". Well, maybe for some partnerships it does, but clearly not this partnership, sine the agreement was unclear.

Presumably pass of 1♠ is forcing, so you can wait for partner to double (when you have a penalty double of spades there is a good chance he has a takeout double) if you really think you are going to get rich doubling them at the 1-level.

[gnasher]

MickyB, on 2014-September-13, 01:29, said:

The double is described as penalties, but turns out to be 2065. Opener is 4513. Declarer believes he may have taken more tricks if told the double was for takeout.

Would he have taken more tricks if he'd been told "no agreement"?

[pran]

MickyB, on 2014-September-13, 01:29, said:

The double is described as penalties, but turns out to be 2065. Opener is 4513. Declarer believes he may have taken more tricks if told the double was for takeout.

gnasher, on 2014-September-13, 09:13, said:

Would he have taken more tricks if he'd been told "no agreement"?

IMHO it doesn't matter.

Unless they can show evidence to the contrary (e.g. "No agreement") I shall still rule "Misinformation" rather than "Misbid".

I am not sure if we have formalized this, but I believe we have a general practice in Norway that when a partnership claims "No agreement", "Undiscussed" or similar (and is unable to prove such assertion) then we protect their opponents by considering their agreement to conform with the cards actually held by the caller who's call is questioned.

It seems too easy for players to get away from misinformation consequences by simply claiming "undiscussed".

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2014-September-13, 04:01, said:

I think Frances is right. The Law says: "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary." "is to presume" means that the director does not weigh up the likelihood. He just rules Mistaken Explanation. If you think there is evidence to the contrary, then you rule according to that evidence.

This leads to the following question: where one meaning is far more common than the other, does that constitute "evidence" for this purpose?

I suspect that Gnasher may be right in that the correct explanation was probably "no specific agreement". But before reaching any conclusion the TD needs to investigate, by asking Responder privately why he thought it was take-out and asking Opener privately why he thought it was penalties.

[blackshoe]

How do you prove a negative?

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2014-September-13, 13:21, said:

This leads to the following question: where one meaning is far more common than the other, does that constitute "evidence" for this purpose?

I suspect that Gnasher may be right in that the correct explanation was probably "no specific agreement". But before reaching any conclusion the TD needs to investigate, by asking Responder privately why he thought it was take-out and asking Opener privately why he thought it was penalties.

I agree with that approach; 85A says: 1. In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect.

[jfnrl]

wanoff, on 2014-September-13, 06:34, said:

What part of "Penalty interest" are people not understanding ?
I'd just pass 1♠ and bid something later on.

I agree.
As it is a forcing pass, double show penalty interest.
This method is standard in France :
double : 4+ spades
pass : 2-3 spades or GF if bidding after partner's double
bid : no penalty interest ; invitationnal
I think it's just bridge logic as the same system is used at high level (when a pass is forcing)

Misbid in my opinion.

[FrancesHinden]

pran, on 2014-September-13, 09:47, said:

IMHO it doesn't matter.

Unless they can show evidence to the contrary (e.g. "No agreement") I shall still rule "Misinformation" rather than "Misbid".

I am not sure if we have formalized this, but I believe we have a general practice in Norway that when a partnership claims "No agreement", "Undiscussed" or similar (and is unable to prove such assertion) then we protect their opponents by considering their agreement to conform with the cards actually held by the caller who's call is questioned.

It seems too easy for players to get away from misinformation consequences by simply claiming "undiscussed".

How can you ever prove that a sequence is undiscussed?
You seem to be applying a rule that says 'I rule you always have an agreement'. I struggle to see the legal basis for this.

[pran]

pran, on 2014-September-13, 09:47, said:

IMHO it doesn't matter.

Unless they can show evidence to the contrary (e.g. "No agreement") I shall still rule "Misinformation" rather than "Misbid".

I am not sure if we have formalized this, but I believe we have a general practice in Norway that when a partnership claims "No agreement", "Undiscussed" or similar (and is unable to prove such assertion) then we protect their opponents by considering their agreement to conform with the cards actually held by the caller who's call is questioned.

It seems too easy for players to get away from misinformation consequences by simply claiming "undiscussed".

FrancesHinden, on 2014-September-15, 17:50, said:

How can you ever prove that a sequence is undiscussed?
You seem to be applying a rule that says 'I rule you always have an agreement'. I struggle to see the legal basis for this.

Law 85 A 1 said:

In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect.

I find the probability extremely low that a player has deliberately made a call without some expectation that his partner will understand it correctly (i.e. that an understanding in fact exists).

(The only exception is when the call is a psyche, in which case he will be able to prove it by showing some agreements from which the deviation is convincing.)

[campboy]

pran, on 2014-September-13, 09:47, said:

Unless they can show evidence to the contrary (e.g. "No agreement") I shall still rule "Misinformation" rather than "Misbid".

The point is, though, that deciding the correct explanation was "no agreement" is still a misinformation ruling. And when deciding between two misinformation rulings, you do so based on the balance of probabilities.

[paulg]

pran, on 2014-September-16, 00:59, said:

I find the probability extremely low that a player has deliberately made a call without some expectation that his partner will understand it correctly

I trust that this probability is zero. Surely every player hopes that his partner will understand his call, even when their agreements do not specifically cover it.

pran, on 2014-September-16, 00:59, said:

(i.e. that an understanding in fact exists)

But this is not the logical conclusion. Hoping, or even expecting, that an understanding exists is not the same as an understanding existing.

In this case, which is quite common at club level although often fixed by tempo and flag waving, it is clear that both partners have a high expectation about the meaning of the double. I don't think it's clear that they had an agreement.

[wanoff]

paulg, on 2014-September-16, 03:04, said:

I don't think it's clear that they had an agreement.

Apart from the one on the card.

If the modern method is to play takeout doubles in these positions, from now on I'll be psyching 1♠ - quite safe since partner has denied spades.