[helene_t]

This concerned an advanced (not expert pair) which has a very detailed convention card but responsive doubles are not mentioned (the EBU template only mentions negative doubles, which for this pair apply through 7♦).

W/W at matchpoints, one of the players in question holds Q-Qxx-KJx-AQJxxx.

It goes
(1♠)-2♣-(4♠)-x
(pass)-?

The 2♣ bid denied four hearts (raptor). The double was undiscussed. There was a slight BIT before the double. Let's assume the player has three LAs, including 4NT for take-out.

[RMB1]

helene_t, on 2014-May-31, 03:50, said:

This concerned an advanced (not expert pair) which has a very detailed convention card but responsive doubles are not mentioned (the EBU template only mentions negative doubles,

FYP.

There is quite a big box on the EBU card for other doubles.

helene_t, on 2014-May-31, 03:50, said:

There was a slight BIT before the double. Let's assume the player has three LAs, including 4NT for take-out.

Was there a "stop" before 4♠? I am surprised a slight BIT was noticeable after a stop-bid pause.

[blackshoe]

It seems to me that if responsive doubles aren't mentioned on the card they aren't playing them. Do they have any meta-agreements regarding undiscussed calls?

[helene_t]

Well responsive doubles probably yes but who knows how high. When the player was asked how she took her partner's double she said she didn't know

[aguahombre]

I expect at least a slight break in tempo when the other 3 players have bid and the auction is at 4S before the person gets her first call...then get on with life.

The 2C overcaller either figures out what to do about partner's double, or he gets it wrong. On the facts given, I see no UI.

[Trinidad]

There are a few questions that need to be answered:

1) Was there a BIT?
I don't know. I wasn't there. If there was no BIT then there is no problem. So, let's assume Helene is right and there was UI that said that partner wasn't sure that double was the best action.

2) What does the double mean?
Apparently, we are not sure what the double means. (That is not an infraction.) I think that we can assume that it shows a decent hand (say 10 HCPs if you want to put a number on it), but we don't know whether it shows a defensive hand (penalty), an offensive hand (takeout) or any hand without a clear direction ("cards").

3) What does the UI (if there was UI) show?
It shows that partner wasn't sure double was the right action. This could mean:
- That partner also didn't know what double would mean.
- That partner might have considered a different call (pass, 5♣, 4NT (takeout/to play?!?)) but came to the conclusion that double described his hand best.

4) Finally, what LAs are suggested over others by the UI?
Normally, in a case where partner's intent is unclear, I would say that double is suggested, because it is the one call that leaves all options open and partner "can convert according to intent". In this case, partner already doubled, so double is not available. This means that we have to make an active choice which basically breaks down to: defend (and pass) or declare (and bid).
I fail to see how the UI (if there was UI) suggests whether partner wants to defend or declare. If it suggests anything then it is that he doesn't know. For this turn to bid, that means that no LA is suggested over any other by the UI.

Rik

[ggwhiz]

aguahombre, on 2014-June-01, 04:21, said:

I expect at least a slight break in tempo when the other 3 players have bid and the auction is at 4S before the person gets her first call...then get on with life.

I would be MUCH more concerned with a fast pass or bid than the type of "bit" as described here.

[blackshoe]

As others have said (or implied) there has been no infraction yet, and it looks like whatever doubler's partner does at this point there will still be no infraction. Carry on.

[nigel_k]

I am reluctant to answer without seeing the hand because I don't want to pass judgment on someone's ethics based on being told to assume which alternatives are logical, rather than deciding that for myself.

To me, this is a negative double auction. Responsive doubles are when partner has doubled, not overcalled. If they have agreed negative doubles to 7♦ then double is not penalty here though it will be passed fairly often.

There is also the stop bid issue but we need more facts to know how that affects this auction.

[aguahombre]

nigel_k, on 2014-June-01, 15:09, said:

I am reluctant to answer without seeing the hand because I don't want to pass judgment on someone's ethics based on being told to assume which alternatives are logical, rather than deciding that for myself.

To me, this is a negative double auction. Responsive doubles are when partner has doubled, not overcalled. If they have agreed negative doubles to 7♦ then double is not penalty here though it will be passed fairly often.

There is also the stop bid issue but we need more facts to know how that affects this auction.

What you miscall it is not particularly important in most contexts, but using the "negative Doubles" part of the CC to judge anything is just plain wrong, because it is NOT a negative double situation. Neg Doubles are for Responder's first action after Partner has opened and the next hand has overcalled. Any other scenario is responsive or Snapdragon or whatever...but not a negative double. "Responsive" Doubles are described in bid-and-raise situations ---whether partner has made a t/o double or an overcall.

[PhilKing]

In my experience, people who play negative double to 7♦ play all conceivable doubles as take-out.

[helene_t]

nigel_k, on 2014-June-01, 15:09, said:

I am reluctant to answer without seeing the hand because I don't want to pass judgment on someone's ethics based on being told to assume which alternatives are logical, rather than deciding that for myself.

Yes maybe I shouldn't have decided what the LAs were.I did it because I was more interested in what the slow double suggested than in which options are LA.

Thanks everyone for your contributions. I bid 4nt and the td ruled it back to 50% 4sx-2 and 50% table result which was 4nt+1 when p had ax xxx aqxx txxx and lho didn't find the heart lead.

I wasn't so happy with the ruling as I thought a slow double was, if anything, more penalty oriented than an a tempo double, and because opps couldn't articulate what exactly their problem was - at first they talked about being misinformed about the meaning of the double so that they didn't find the 5s sac !

Is it possible to give a weighted score in such a situation? I would think not.

[campboy]

helene_t, on 2014-June-02, 01:22, said:

Is it possible to give a weighted score in such a situation? I would think not.

Not here. The TD has to decide whether bidding 4NT is an infraction. If so (assuming there is damage) he should adjust based on what might have happened without the infraction, i.e. if you had passed. In most jurisdictions he can weight between possible outcomes, but they must all be possible outcomes without the infraction, so in this case they can only be different numbers of tricks in 4♠x.

Sometimes in a UI case it will be possible to include the table score in a weighted ruling, but only when the same result can be reached by another method. A typical example might be a player with UI bidding one more in a competitive auction, if it is judged that he should have passed but then his partner might have competed in the passout seat.

[lamford]

A slow bid in this type of auction does not demonstrably suggest anything other than that the person was considering bidding something else, whereas an in-tempo bid shows that he may not have been considering bidding something else. As we cannot tell what he was considering bidding, and all of pass, 4NT, 5C, 5D and 5H were possible, there are no ethical constraints. What would I bid? Not 4NT, which I think promises four diamonds, and close between pass and 5C. If partner has something like Kx Kxxx Axxx xxx, pass will work well, but opposite Jx KJxx Qxxx Kxx it may do badly.

[jallerton]

It's not often that you see an application of the "if it hesitates, shoot it" principle combined with a Reveley ruling.