Incomplete but not mis-information

edited March 7 in EBU TDs

The bidding goes:

          W    N     E      S
               1H   1NT    X(a)
          P     P    P

The double is explained as "bid again, I have support for the other 3 suits"

It later transpires that the double also shows 6+ points. Result: 2 down for a bad score.

EW complain that W would have bid had she known about the point count (W has one point).

I ruled that while the explanation was incomplete it was not mis-information. W is perfectly aware than the explanation has not included a point count and could easily have asked for one. I also reminded N that explanations should be complete.

Was I right?

Comments

  • Is "6+" a typo? If not, how many points did EW expect?
    In any case, if West has a very weak hand, the double is likely to be passed around whatever its meaning.

  • TagTag
    edited March 7

    Maybe they should learn about SOS redoubles while they are wondering whether the double could have some strength and whether it's forcing partner to bid again - both being questions they could have asked.

  • @gordonrainsford said:
    Is "6+" a typo? If not, how many points did EW expect?
    In any case, if West has a very weak hand, the double is likely to be passed around whatever its meaning.

    No it's not a typo, and exactly!

  • I think perhaps the EW players need the concept of a penalty pass to be explained to them.

  • W only has one point so knows that 1N is likely to go down regardless of how many S has.

    Is not the issue that it was described as "bid again", implying that it was forcing, and N didn't. But then, players always have the option of passing non-penalty doubles to convert to penalties. So looks like no issue there either and W just making a fuss because she made a bad bid and got a bad score.

    But if W really is making a fuss would it be resolved by polling by trying to find other players who would pass when told as originally, and ask if they would do differently if told "6+" also? Trouble is, might be tricky to find players who would have made the same original bid of pass.

  • Isn't W more likely to bid if given all the information? Of course they should know better ... but with some opponents getting a complete explanation of bids can take some effort.

  • @pg10003 said:
    Isn't W more likely to bid if given all the information? Of course they should know better ... but with some opponents getting a complete explanation of bids can take some effort.

    Why would West ever think the call could be made with no values? Why would South have doubled? Would West have thought that an explanation of 1C - (1S) - X would need to say more than that it shows hearts?

  • @gordonrainsford said:

    @pg10003 said:
    Isn't W more likely to bid if given all the information? Of course they should know better ... but with some opponents getting a complete explanation of bids can take some effort.

    Why would West ever think the call could be made with no values? Why would South have doubled? Would West have thought that an explanation of 1C - (1S) - X would need to say more than that it shows hearts?

    Opponents have a right to know what you know about your sides bids ... don't they? How hard would it be to add "and 6+ points" to the explanation given in the OP.

    I still think West is more likely to get things right with all the information and we are wrong to tell them they should have still got it right without explicit information.

  • @pg10003 said:
    Opponents have a right to know what you know about your sides bids ... don't they? How hard would it be to add "and 6+ points" to the explanation given in the OP.

    No, it wouldn't be hard, although nor would it be hard to ask if the information is thought to be significant. I ask again, what did he imagine it showed? He thought it might be a yarborough? I still think it may be that he hadn't yet encountered a takeout double being converted, in which case it wouldn't matter what strength was indicated.

  • IMO, it doesn't even matter whether the double shows points or not. If West has one HCP, then they should know that their side has the minority of points, whether South has 6+ and North 16-, or South 2 and North 20. In fact, the danger of a penalty pass is probably greater when South has fewer points. So I agree that failure to disclose the 6+ aspect of the agreement is not damaging on this occasion.

    What troubles me is whether this really is a "Please bid again" double, even though they describe it as such. How often is North actually going to make a penalty pass? (If i had to play this agreement) I would probably do so whenever I have non-minimum values without a second long suit.

  • To be honest, I really hate the description as "bid again, I have support for the other 3 suits" if opener is not going to bid again. It seems entirely possible to me to play the double as a 4054 0-count inviting partner to compete.

  • @Frances said:
    To be honest, I really hate the description as "bid again, I have support for the other 3 suits" if opener is not going to bid again. It seems entirely possible to me to play the double as a 4054 0-count inviting partner to compete.

    What would you expect opener to do with a 3523 16-count (or 18-count if that hand would have opened 1NT)?

  • I don't know, I've never played this method and don't know how they are playing it.

    I observe that a normal take-out double of a suit bid at the 1-level is passed pretty rarely

    Some people play that double of an opening 1NT bid shows a single-suiter, and may be very weak. 4th hand can pass, but that is pretty rare (generally only on a hand that had a penalty double of 1NT)

    I think there's a big distinction between "I expect partner to bid but he can pass with a balanced 18-count" and "I've got 6+ points and partner will pass every time he thinks we have the majority of the points"

  • ps I agree that when 4th hand has a 1-count he will be expecting the double to be passed. But if you are told a call means 'bid again' and it doesn't, it means 'pass if we've got them nailed' I think it's a bit cruel.

    To put it another way, consider these two explanations of the auction 1H 1NT dbl

    i) Penalties - we are likely to have the majority of the HCP and I have the other three suits covered
    ii) Bid again - I have support for the other three suits and enough strength to be worth competing

    They are actually both describing exactly the same hand. But one includes the word 'penalties' and the other the words 'bid again'.

  • Would it not be acceptable to describe the double as 'shows values', without having to be specific about the number of HCP? 'Values' can be HCP or a long trick-taking suit. The bidder has 'something', he's not blank.

Sign In or Register to comment.